Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

House Purchase and Improvement

Mr. Wakeham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources he intends to allocate to local authorities for loans for house purchase and improvement in 1978–79.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): A sum of £255 million will be available to local authorities in England in 1978–79 both for lending and for improvement grants. Virement provisions will allow authorities to adjust expenditure in each category to suit local needs. The building societies have agreed to provide an additional £267 million under the support lending scheme.

Mr. Wakeham: Does the Minister agree that the number of local authority loans indicates a substantial cut on the 1974 –75 figures, which is in breach of the Labour Party manifesto of October 1974 and, more importantly, must affect very harshly the poorest members of our society who look to the local authorities for such loans?

Mr. Shore: The figures in 1974 were exceptional—indeed, they were a record in terms of local authority mortgage lending. They were record figures for the simple reason that there was a mortgage famine affecting the building societies as a result of the failure of the general management of monetary and fiscal policy in this country.
The situation today is that the building societies, which are the principal source of lending, have about twice as

much money to lend as they had available in 1974.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he has the balance of his figures right in this case? Is he aware that many people on local authority housing lists will be forced to accept local authority housing if they do not get the opportunity of obtaining a local authority housing loan? Does he appreciate that if people can get a local authority housing loan it is not only to their benefit but, in the long run, better for the finances of the local and central authorities?

Mr. Shore: It is a matter of priorities. If I had several hundred million pounds more available for housing expenditure I should like to see some part of it made available to local councils for borrowing. The fact is that we have had to make a choice in housing allocation. I have allocated money primarily to encourage resource expenditure rather than financing, because I believe that there is a vast alternative source of finance in the building societies. Through the building society mortgage support scheme, which we have increased by another £100 million this year, there is an additional source of funds available to people who would normally apply to local authorities.

Mr. Rossi: Since the right hon. Gentleman feels that it is unfair to compare the 1974–75 figures with the figures that he has just announced, would he like to compare and comment on the comparison with the 1972–73 and 1973–74 figures, because those are also relevant? Also, would he like to remind the House of the Labour Party manifesto promise at the last General Election on the subject of local authority loans?

Mr. Shore: The Labour Party, in facing the election, was conscious of the enormous shortage and drying-up of building society funds—hence, as I said, the massive increase in mortgage lending in 1974–75, which was absolutely necessary.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. The current figures for local authority direct lending are lower than they were in 1972–73. Indeed, they are lower than they have been for some years past. But I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to take account of the fact that we have this substantial addition from


the building societies under the support lending scheme.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Secretary of State sanction a massive increase in improvement grants, first, because the system is labour-intensive, and, secondly, because it can be started far more quickly than new house building and can, therefore, relieve unemployment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many councils, such as Manchester, have bought up a large number of old houses with a view to improving them and that now, because the improvement grants have been cut off, those houses have to be left empty and unimproved?

Mr. Shore: I think that my hon. Friend will be the first to acknowledge and recognise—the figures have only just been released—that the North-West, Manchester in particular, has had a substantial increase this year in its housing expenditure allocation. There will be a marked increase in its favour in 1978–79. As for the way in which that money should be spent, I must point out that under the new block system it is possible for Manchester to aggregate both direct lending and private improvement grant money and to switch from one to the other if it thinks that that is the right thing to do. Improvement grants for local authority dwellings have also been increased.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will inaugurate a departmental review of the operation of the rate support grant, with particular attention to the calculation of need, so that a more equitable settlement can be made in 1979–80.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will inaugurate a departmental review of the operation of the rate support grant, with particular attention to the calculation of need, so that a more equitable settlement can be made in 1979– 80.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will inaugurate a departmental review of the operation of the rate support grant, with particular attention to the calculation of need, so that a more equitable settlement can be made in 1979–80.

Mr. Shore: The Consultative Council on Local Government Finance itself has commissioned a review which includes consideration of methods of needs assessment and the grant machinery. Results will be reported to the Consultative Council in the spring.

Mr. Miller: Does the Secretary of State realise that the present formula operates severely to the disadvantage of counties with a growing population, such as the one that I have the honour to represent, and that it seems all the more unfair when additional resources are given to the metropolitan areas exporting that population?

Mr. Shore: No, Sir. I do not accept that. I understand very well the difficulties that faced all local authorities, and particularly counties, especially last year, because a redistributive mechanism is involved in the assessment of needs. On the whole, it operates against the counties in favour of the cities. I accept that. But I do not accept that the counties are disadvantaged, if we consider, as I believe the House does consider, that needs should be the major criteria upon which we should base the allocation of RSG.

Mr. Hicks: Will the Minister bear in mind that rural areas, which are counties, tend to have rising populations and yet their resources are less, and that therefore their needs under the existing formula place them at a disadvantage compared with urban areas, whose resources tend to be greater and whose populations may well be declining? That is the point that we wish to register with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Shore: The truth of the matter is that within the needs grant there are really two major elements. One of those major elements precisely reflects increases in population. Therefore, to the extent that population is increasing it is reflected in the needs element. But the other part of the needs element reflects relative needs per capita, based upon the use of the various factors that enter into what we consider to be the main categories of need.

Mr. Mills: Whatever the Minister says, it is unfair, and many people in the South-West feel a real sense of injustice in these matters. Will he take it from me that


services have been badly affected in rural areas, even when counties have tried to save money? The present basis is totally unfair, and we are getting rather tired of being clobbered in this matter.

Mr. Shore: I understand the difficulties that have faced many authorities and many of the counties in recent years. I do not wish to pretend that they do not exist. They are real. Nevertheless, I believe that we have chosen what is still the best of the formulae available to us in deciding how to meet the needs, which vary and are differentiated between different parts of the country. If we can find a better method of assessing needs I shall be extremely happy to use it.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the Welsh share of the grant for the forthcoming year will decrease by 3 per cent., whereas London's share increases by 12·2 per cent.? Does he agree that the older industrial communities of South Wales face just as much the problems of poor housing and heavy unemployment as do some of the inner cities?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend knows that I have the greatest sympathy and concern for Wales, as I have for other parts of the country. However, the truth about London is that it is paying, on average, much higher rate bills than the rest of the country. Therefore, it seemed to me to be right to moderate that process during this rate support grant settlement.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: In view of what the Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), how can he possibly justify the fact that since 1974 the counties' share of the needs grant has fallen by 16 per cent. and London's share has risen by 54 per cent., despite the fact that the share of the population of the non-metropolitan counties has risen, whilst that of London has fallen substantially? Further, how can he justify the fact that the average increase throughout the country is 7·3 per cent. and that in Lancashire, in particular, it is only 5·7 per cent., despite its growing population, to which he referred?

Mr. Shore: The truth is that there is only a partial correlation between needs and growth of population. In so far as the growth of population brings forth further

expenditure needs, that is reflected in the formula. But the other part of the needs formula must take account of the services that are obviously much more expensive. For example, there may be a larger number of single-parent families or old people living on their own. If there are categories of need of that kind—they tend to accumulate in particular areas—one must acknowledge that there is a need, and it must be met.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend disabuse the House of any notion that there has been some peculiar generosity to the cities? Is he aware that the grant to Sheffield has been savagely cut, in real terms, though Sheffield's needs have in no way diminished? Can he arrange for a public discussion of the basis of these calculations, which seem to have produced absolutely bizarre results?

Mr. Shore: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think that I explained to him on an earlier occasion—certainly during the course of our debate in December—that some effects were produced by a re-sorting of data in the RSG formula this year. Sheffield, like certain other metropolitan areas, was affected by those changes, which were agreed by all the local authority associations. But I do not believe that that is a continuing effect. It has happened in this year and is not likely to be repeated.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the Secretary of State understand that much of the anxiety on both sides of the House arises when he refers to needs but when in fact we all know that his calculations are based on figures that are about seven years out of date? Does he appreciate, therefore, that it is the suspicion of the arbitrary use of power behind closed doors which actually concerns hon. Members? For example, in September 1976 he injected unemployment into his calculations as a figure, and then, when unemployment was higher in September 1977, he took it out again.

Mr. Shore: I accept the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said—that there is a continuing problem with data and that, unless we have up-to-date information, whatever system we use for assessing needs is bound to be that much more fragile and less secure than we would wish it to be. Having said that, I do not


accept what he said about arbitrariness and closed doors. If at any time the hon. Member wants to ask for a further debate on the whole question of how we can best deal with the assessment of needs, why does he not do so?

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received concerning the 1978–79 rate support grant for Essex; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Shore: Since my reply to the hon. Member's identical Question on 23rd November 1977, I have been in conespondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). I have sought to clear up the misunderstandings that exist about the safety net, and repeated my readiness to see a deputation of Essex Members.

Mr. Newton: Will the Secretary of State accept our thanks for that assurance? Does he understand that all Members representing Essex constituencies share the views expressed earlier on the question whether the rate support grant takes proper account of the needs of counties with expanding population? Does he further accept that in Essex this problem is compounded by under-funding on the transport supplementary grant, and not least on the hospital services? Will he consult other Ministers about the total flow of Government funds to a county in that situation before making next year's decision about rate support grant?

Mr. Shore: As I said, I am willing to see hon. Members from Essex. I agree that Essex has headed the league of counties which have been adversely affected by successive rate support grant settlements. I shall be willing to go over in detail the problems that affect the county.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour activists, who fully recognise the serious needs of London, can in no way begrudge the settlement within the metropolis but nevertheless feel that the needs element does not provide for Essex and cannot do so in the future? Is he aware that unless something is done about it before next year's grant is settled, services in Essex will inevitably deteriorate, or very heavy

additional burdens will fall upon ratepayers?

Mr. Shore: I certainly hope that there will be no reductions in services in Essex, although I understand that the financial needs of the county may well face the county council with the necessity for a considerably higher than average rate call. I repeat that I am willing to examine with my hon. Friend and his colleagues the various factors that have affected Essex.

Mr. Ovenden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we might avoid this annual and rather pointless ritual of arguing about the effect of the rate support grant on individual areas if we set up a Select Committee to study the alternative methods of determining rate support grant and to consider the respective merits? Would he recommend such an idea to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House?

Mr. Shore: I certainly would not dismiss such a suggestion from my mind. But if my hon. Friend imagines that that would be a way of preventing, ironing out or somehow avoiding continued argument, I must discourage him on that point. As he knows, we have a continued dialogue with the associations of local authorities, and they do not always agree amongst themselves. I am sure that would be reflected in discussions in this House—and not necessarily on party lines.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is not Essex's problem also due largely to the education system and the fact that it was the right hon. Gentleman's decision to remove the factor on education? When there are increasing numbers of schoolchildren, that must involve the county in increased expenditure. Is that not one of the key points that he must look at when revising the formula?

Mr. Shore: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the re-sorting of the educational data which stopped the double payment of moneys in respect of authorities which are educating children and young people who live in another authority. It was an agreed recommendation of the local authorities that it should end. Additionally, in Essex this year the county was affected by changes in the improved data that became available in


relation to earnings—earnings not only of male workers but of women workers.

Mr. Heseltine: If the Secretary of State was convinced by the Essex case, what powers has he to help that county in the 1978–79 settlement?

Mr. Shore: What we could do, and what we try to do when views are put to us by various deputations, is to consider within the working group the possibilities of testing different factors of need, so that we use those which are most relevant and which genuinely detect the existing needs.

Mr. Heseltine: Do I take it from that answer that the Secretary of State has no powers to help them?

Mr. Shore: What I do not have is the power to select a particular authority and say that I shall make money available to it; nor do I think that that would be a good power for Secretaries of State to have. I have to deal with broad categories of authorities and with broad categories of need.

Housing Land

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the forward supply of land for housing.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The message that I get is that there is no general shortage but that there are some local and individual difficulties.

Mr. Sainsbury: How does the Minister reconcile his complacency with the view of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers that there is a danger of a serious land shortage which requires immediate action to be taken?

Mr. Freeson: I have heard these views expressed, not only by the NFBTE but by other organisations involved in this area. I can only state that they are usually general statements that—to put it mildly—are not sufficiently supported by any firm evidence. We try to monitor as effectively as we can what is going on around the country on land supply and the servicing of land and planning applications that have been approved, and it is on that basis that I made the statement that I did.

Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for about 35 years Lambeth and Wandsworth have owned 100 acres in Kingston on which 4,000 houses could be built? When are they going to get on with that? Why are he and his Department putting every possible obstacle in the way of our getting on with that job and substantially reducing the very large housing list in Lambeth and Wandsworth?

Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend is probably referring to a recent planning application and appeal that was dealt with by my right hon. Friend. I cannot add to the decision that was made on that case.

Mr. Tebbit: Is it not true that it is the Minister's figures that are generalised rather than particularised, and not the industry's? Is it not also true that a large amount of the land listed as being available for building is unsuitable or is very expensive land on which to build, and that there will be a considerable shortage of land for building at a reasonably low cost so that members of the general population may purchase their own homes?

Mr. Freeson: I have little doubt that the land owned under various structure plans and local plans around the country includes land that would be considered difficult for development both by private enterprise and by local authorities, but the basis of my statement is, at least in part, the fact that on the information available there is about three years' supply of land available for development which has planning permission and is main-serviced. There is a considerable further supply that has not yet reached that stage.

Housing Bill

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to introduce the Housing Bill.

Mr. Shore: We hope that the Housing Bill foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech will be introduced shortly.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the delay in introducing the Bill due to a dawning recognition on the part of Ministers that Socialist housing policies lead inevitably to homelessness and to a growing readiness to


accept the ideas underlying the last Conservative Housing Act?

Mr. Shore: That is a rather curious intervention, first, because it is based upon the assumption that there has been delay. The hon. Gentleman will recall that we published the Green Paper in July of last year and invited interested parties to comment upon it by 1st December. We have had comments and we have acted, I think, quite swiftly. I hope that we shall present a Bill very shortly.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the objective of the proposed Bill to assist first-time house buyers will not be achieved if building societies continue with their present practices, particularly with reference to red-lining, and their objections to flats? Will he ensure that the Bill makes provision for guarantees by local authorities, to enable those persons who are at present having the greatest difficulty in obtaining adequate building society mortgages to obtain them?

Mr. Shore: The whole system of interest-free loans for five years, which is the basic provision of the Bill, together with savings bonus schemes, will make it possible for a number of people who might previously have been thought not to qualify for a building society mortgage to qualify for one. I think it will b2 helpful in that respect. The problem of red-lining in general is one that has to be tackled more directly. As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken a number of initiatives with building societies and local authorities to try to bring that about.

Dog Warden Schemes

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to require local authorities to set up dog warden schemes or, failing legislation, what encouragement he is giving to local authorities to do so on a voluntary basis.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): The general establishment of dog warden schemes is one of the matters that I am examining in the light of public response to the report of the Working Party on Dogs. I hope to make an announcement on the report as a whole in the near

future. Local authorities already have discretionary powers for the purpose, and I welcome the fact that several local authorities have already instituted such a service.

Miss Fookes: May I inject some sense of urgency into the Minister's deliberations, as this is a matter which is of interest not only to dog-lovers concerned with the welfare of animals but to those concerned for the general public? There is always the danger of outbreaks of rabies.

Mr. Howell: Since the hon. Lady came came to see me recently with a very distinguished delegation on this matter, I can assure her that she has succeeded in injecting a greater sense of urgency into my deliberations.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can my right hon. Friend remind us when the departmental inquiry into dogs was set up, when it actually reported and how long it has been deliberating? Since, in the summer, my right hon. Friend said that he was considering making an announcement "soon", can he now give us a specific date? Is he aware that both dog-lovers and dog-haters would like him to take action quickly on that report?

Mr. Howell: I have not got the actual date with me, but I will write to my hon. Friend. I can assure him that my experience of consulting the world at large about the Working Party on Dogs is that it takes a considerable time. The correspondence is voluminous and needs to be studied with great care. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I hope to make a very early announcement.

Mr. Rossi: May I remind the Minister that he gave me an assurance that he would deal with this as a matter of urgency during the passage of the Control of Pollution Bill in the spring of 1974?

Mr. Howell: That can hardly be the case, since the working party had not reported at that time. I do not think that I had even set it up at that time.

Mr. Rossi: It was as a result of the Minister's undertaking that the working party was set up two years later.

Mr. Anthony Johnson

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations have been made to him by Hampshire County Council following the district auditor's report on the case of Mr. Anthony Johnson, a former secretary to the Council.

Mr. Freeson: Hampshire County Council has made no such representations to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that this scandal arose out of the local government reorganisation carried out by the previous Tory Government, with all the squandering of public resources and bureaucratic extravaganza that went with it? Will he give the House an assurance that all possible precautions are now being taken to prevent abuses of this kind in the future?

Mr. Freeson: As my hon. Friend knows, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that he made about local government reorganisation. On the specific issue that he raised, Sections 159 to 161 of the 1972 Act provide the appropriate machinery for challenging action by local authorities that is outside their statutory rights and duties.

Community Land

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the most up-to-date estimate of the amount of land taken into public ownership by use of the Community Land Act, broken down by economic planning regions.

Mr. Freeson: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. Canavan: As the British total for last year was only 2,000 acres, and the Scottish total 66 acres, does this not indicate that the Act has so far failed to bring about a radical and much-needed change in the ownership of land? As far too much land is still owned by speculators, exploiters and people whose ancestors stole it, and as their claim to land ownership in many cases is doubtful, to say the least, will my right hon. Friend draw up a complete register of land ownership as a first step towards

extending the public ownership of all land, in the interests of the community?

Mr. Freeson: Whilst I am very much in favour, and will be pursuing the question, of better land management as a whole, I do not think that the setting up of such a register would be the first priority in moves to that end. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the community land scheme and the Act upon which it is based were designed in such a way as to allow for the cumulative build-up of action under the Act and not for some sudden takeover of all the land to which he has referred.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Minister confirm that the amount of acreage resold in the first year of the Act was 33 acres, and that the number of circulars and ministerial directions issued by the Government in that time total 111?

Mr. Freeson: I cannot confirm the precise figures, but I will, if necessary, write to the hon. Gentleman. On the main underlying point, I imagine that, whatever his views about the Act, the hon. Gentleman would not expect such a scheme to produce a balancing out of purchase and resale in the first 12 months of its operation. It is a cumulative scheme and is expected to operate in that way.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the bitter disappointment about the way in which this valuable Act has been watered down? The Opposition think that it has gone too far, but we do not think that it has gone far enough. Is he further aware that only 800 acres of housing land have been publicly acquired, half of which would have been bought by the councils in any case? May I therefore ask him to implement the original plan as conceived and put forward in our election manifesto?

Mr. Freeson: I can understand that my hon. Friend is anxious, as I am, to see the scheme operating as steadily and as rapidly as possible, but I have to tell him that he is mistaken if he thinks that the scheme is not operating as the Act requires.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister also prepare a register of all the land in the cities already owned by local authorities and nationalised industries, in order that


we may also see how much derelict and wasted land already in public ownership is adding to the blight of our urban areas?

Mr. Freeson: Certainly there is a problem in a number of city areas, and we are already taking action with regard to the first priority, the inner urban areas, where we are establishing the partnership and programme authorities. But I have to add that this is not simply a question of asking such authorities—and, one hopes, others later on—to look more carefully at the land holdings that they have; it is a question of looking at all of the derelict land and property in these areas, some of which is held by public bodies, including local authorities, and some by private owners.

Following is the information:

The amount of land acquired under the Community Land Scheme in 1976–77 in economic planning regions was as follows:


Economic Planning Region
Acres


West Midland
380


East Midland
185


Yorkshire and Humberside
335


Northern
315


North West
150


South West
70


East Anglia
20


South East
135


Other land acquired and subject to Community Land Scheme rules
116


Total (England)
1,706

The comparable figures for Wales and Scotland are as follows:


Wales
406


Scotland (from 1st September 1976)
66


Total (Great Britain)
2,178

It is too early to provide figures for the current financial year.

Headquarters Building

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve the external rear elevations of the Department of the Environment Building.

Mr. Denis Howell: In order to improve the appearance at the rear of 2 Marsham Street, work is about to start on the provision of climbing plants.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful for that answer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has looked at the elevations in Monk Street, where reinforcing bars are sticking out of the foundations of the building in which he works and there is a great deal of rust and an unkempt appearance.

The Department has today issued Circular 378 awarding good designs in housing, but it is about time it put its own house in order.

Mr. Howell: We certainly agree that we should make it a more attractive building, to match the attractiveness of the administration inside it.

Mr. Skinner: May we assume that what the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has revealed is the latest episode in the Lib-Lab pact? Does not it prove that what the Liberals were really about was inspecting the numerous offices up and down Whitehall?

Mr. Howell: I do not think that my hon. Friend should draw that conclusion. The hon. Gentleman speaks on matters for which I am responsible. I regret to say that I rarely see him to discuss matters of mutual concern.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the Minister agree that the total benefits of the Lib-Lab pact are commemorated in Marsham Street by the gaps between the towers of the Department's building there?

Mr. Howell: As the hon. Gentleman was Minister when the building was created, I thought that the gaps had something to do with the intellectual gaps for which his Administration were responsible.

Stockport (Gipsy Site)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with Greater Manchester Council and Stockport metropolitan borough about the provision of a permanent gipsy site in Stockport.

Mr. Denis Howell: None, Sir. This is primarily a matter for the two councils, which have the statutory responsibilities.

Mr. Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the legislation was introduced over 10 years ago to endeavour to solve the problems both of gipsies and of those who have to put up with temporary unsatisfactory gipsy sites close to them? Can he not now inject a sense of urgency into local authorities to see that they produce a solution equitable to both gipsies and to those people who have to put up with them on unsatisfactory temporary sites?

Mr. Howell: I have a great deal of sympathy with that supplementary question, which is why the Cripps Report was commissioned. Most people agree that it was an extremely valuable document, pointing the way forward in this direction, with a sensible balance between the conflicting interests. We are certainly urging local authorities to implement the report's provisions with the utmost urgency.

Mr. James Lamond: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are implications for other metropolitan district councils in Greater Manchester because of the dragging of feet by Stockport and three of the other metropolitan boroughs which have so far taken no action in this matter? This means that citizens in boroughs such as Oldham cannot reap the benefit from having acted expeditiously and provided a site some years ago.

Mr. Howell: I understand that the Greater Manchester Council provided five permanent sites for 60 caravans, with two temporary sites for a further 15 caravans, and I believe that the Council is now considering two additional sites. It is for local authorities to carry out their statutory obligations. Clearly, the Government cannot comment on the detailed provision by every local authority in the country.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the Minister be prepared to designate small, limited areas which have fulfilled their duties and provided camp sites, without waiting for a whole county to be designated, as in the case of Lancashire and Lancaster for example?

Mr. Howell: I think that the logic of the Cripps Report pointed in that direction.

Litter

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's anti-litter programme.

Mr. Denis Howell: We are now urgently exploring with the local authority associations the date at which the litter abatement provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 can be implemented. I hope that it will be soon. I expect to be able to announce shortly a substantial

increase in the grant in aid to the Keep Britain Tidy Group for 1978–79.

Mr. Townsend: Will the Minister now give his support to compulsory deposits on canned and bottled beverages? Would not such a scheme reduce litter, prevent waste and, in time, lead to a reduction in costs?

Mr. Howell: It might do all of those things, but it is not a matter on which I am prepared to comment in answer to a supplementary question.

Mr. Hardy: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in some parts of the country in the past two or three years an improvement seems to have taken place? Does he agree that in the rest of the major parts of the country, where the situation is gravely unsatisfactory, firm sanctions must ultimately be applied?

Mr. Howell: I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend has found places where there has been an improvement. We must all make our own judgments. I believe that the filth and squalor in our cities is getting worse. I hope that people will apply their minds to this problem, as it is an important environmental factor affecting millions of people living in our cities.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware that one of the disastrous effects—certainly in my constituency—of the rate support grant settlement recently announced is that, unfortunately, further cuts will need to be made in the staff who look after the highways? This will mean that the amount of litter, which is growing, will become even worse. The trees that have been planted by councils over the years to improve the environment are not getting the attention that they need, and are dying for the lack of it.

Mr. Howell: I should be very sorry if that were the case, but it is a matter for the local authorities to decide their priorities within their expenditure. However, I am convinced that all local authorities are taking their environmental obligations increasingly seriously.

Partnership Committees (Ministerial Membership)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what


criteria he chose Ministers of differing status to sit on the seven partnership committees set up for the inner cities; and which Ministers have been chosen.

Mr. Shore: In view of the need for close ministerial involvement in the partnership committees, and the considerable work load therefore involved, I have asked three of my ministerial colleagues to act as chairmen of individual partnerships. For details I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) on 15th December 1977.

Mr. Silvester: In view of the importance of industry and of the Secretary of State's new Bill, is it not odd that, for example, in Manchester an Under-Secretary has been appointed from the Department of Industry, whereas a Minister of State will be sent from other Ministries? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to explain that?

Mr. Shore: No, that is not an entirely accurate description of what has happened. We are working with our colleagues in other Departments on all the partnership authorities. Ministers from the Department of Industry attend partnership committees at different levels, whether as a Minister of State or as an Under-Secretary. However, the important point is that all the other Departments principally involved are present at ministerial level.

Mr. Loyden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than limiting the scope of the various Departments, the matter should be approached with the widest possible involvement of the Departments concerned? Furthermore, the broadest possible basis for community involvement in inner city area schemes should be employed.

Mr. Shore: I agree with my hon. Friend. The involvement of the community—and there are, in virtually all inner city areas, many different voluntary organisations—must be brought into relationship with the partnership authorities. That is one of the main matters upon which we have asked the partnership committees to report at their next meetings.

Mr. Alison: Should the partnership scheme's priority aim of increasing

employment in the inner cities be taken as the signal for the expansion or for the contraction of direct labour departments?

Mr. Shore: I think that a lot will depend on the circumstances, the wishes and the organisation of local authorities. Direct labour organisations are by no means the universal pattern. In those areas where they exist, I have no doubt that they will be able to make a useful contribution.

Public Works Contracts (Advertisements)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many notices of public works contracts and licences, advertised in the EEC Official Journal in accordance with EEC directives, have been published by British local authorities; and how many have been accepted by non-British contractors in other EEC countries.

Mr. Shore: Up to 30 November 1977, 2,742 public works contracts had been advertised in the Official Journal of the EEC by local authorities in the United Kingdom. As far as I am aware, none of these has been placed with a contractor based in an EEC country other than the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marten: What, then, is the point of continuing with this bureaucratic bumbledom?

Mr. Shore: This is an arrangement that was not exactly introduced by myself, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. I assume that United Kingdom public works contractors may have the opportunity of contracting for work in other European countries, just as they have here.

Mr. Tomney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Texaco Limited has just placed an order with a Spanish company for an oil refinery at Milford Haven?

Mr. Shore: I am not aware of the details of what my hon. Friend has just stated, but I shall willingly look at the matter. However, the Question is directed to the subject of local authorities.

Mr. Costain: Does not the answer prove that Continental contractors see how many British contractors go bankrupt and have no desire to work in this country?

Mr. Shore: What a miserable view the hon. Gentleman takes. It is disgraceful. If the figures mean anything, and if I had to put an interpretation on them, I would say that they show that British local authorities, when they have rival bids put to them, have tended to choose British contractors. That, no doubt, reflects the admirable work of British contractors.

Mr. Heseltine: Presumably the right hon. Gentleman would agree that, since exactly the same system operates throughout the Common Market, our excellent contractors would do extremely well on the Continent of Europe.

Mr. Shore: I should have to look up the details of that, but I shall willingly look into it for the hon. Gentleman.

Flood Damage (Compensation)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up a special departmental inquiry into the question of giving adequate compensation to householders affected by flooding in the Greater London area during 1977.

Mr. Freeson: An inquiry is not necessary. Local authorities possess adequate powers under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 to spend money or grant loans to alleviate the effects of emergencies or disasters such as flooding.

Mr. Dykes: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he note that I was suggesting not that central Government funds should be used but that an inquiry might be useful in getting greater co-ordination, in the sense that last year, when there was violent flooding in August, there was a considerable difference in the treatment meted out by local authorities in terms of the size of compensation payments and the number of people compensated?

Mr. Freeson: I am aware that different local authorities place different emphases and hold different views, but, in fairness, I must say that the impact of this kind of emergency was different in different areas, not only between boroughs but within the boroughs concerned. I think that we must leave it to the elected local authorities to make their own judgments on the basis of their local facts as best they can in this matter.

Mr. Molloy: With reference to the floods that hit North-West London last

August, can my right hon. Friend say whether, under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972, it would be permissible for two tiers of local authorities—for example, the London borough of Ealing and the GLC—to co-operate in making compensatory payments and assisting victims? If so, ought he not to encourage them to act in a civilised, sensible way by sharing the responsibility, instead of bickering stupidly about who should do it?

Mr. Freeson: I should have to ask for notice of that question. I will check the Act in detail to see whether the two tiers could provide assistance jointly, and I will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jessel: Would it not be better to concentrate on preventing flooding rather than on compensation? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Agriculture why the completion of the Thames Barrier has been delayed for two years from 1979 to 1981, at ever-mounting cost to ratepayers and taxpayers?

Mr. Freeson: So far as I am aware—this is an off-the-cuff observation—the flooding to which the questions have so far referred did not relate to the flood barrier but arose from difficulties due essentially to the overflowing of the River Brent and related waterworks in the North-West London area.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents were very adversely affected by the recent floods? Is he further aware that the cost of preventing such floods recurring in the area is astronomic, running into many millions of pounds—quite beyond the capacity of either the GLC or the individual boroughs to deal with? Is there not, therefore, a case for some discussion on this issue, perhaps between his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, together with local authorities, to see whether special assistance can be given?

Mr. Freeson: Again I speak off the cuff, but my understanding is that the GLC has undertaken, and I believe is still in the midst of, a major review of the implications of the flooding. On the basis of the information available to me, I would not accept the general proposition that the resource requirements for undertaking a programme of works has been, over the past years, or will be, in


the future, beyond the capacity of the GLC and the local authorities, especially the GLC. In any case, there is considerable Government assistance by way of rate support grant to annual revenue costs of local authority expenditure.

Housing (Parker Morris Standards)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now abolish or revise the Parker Morris standards for housing.

Mr. Freeson: We will not abolish the standards, but, as stated in the Green Paper on Housing Policy, we believe there is a need to introduce greater flexibility into their application, and we will consult the local authority associations about this.

Mr. Smith: I am glad to hear that. Is the Minister aware that these standards were laid down as minima, but that more and more local authorities appear to be interpreting them as maxima? In view of the difficulties, which I am sure the Minister appreciates, particularly over such things as the need for alternative heating systems, will he do what he can to speed up this study?

Mr. Freeson: I take the hon. Gentleman's general point. Indeed, his specific example is very much in my mind. Briefly, I should like to see a system in which we provided for a range of options for standards and gave greater flexibility to switch from one element of expenditure to another in different kinds of housing, if need be, giving a council the authority to improve on heating, if it is prepared to forgo other provisions. We are still working on this matter and shall be having consultations about it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in creating this flexibility we do not encourage a reduction in standards? Will he remember that we are suffering today from reductions in standards that were approved and brought in by the Conservatives years ago?

Mr. Freeson: This is a great worry to me in any system of flexibility that we introduce. I shall bear it closely in mind. In introducing flexibility, we must not risk a runaway erosion of

standards. I am certainly intent on avoiding that.

Mr. Michael Morris: But is not the real question not a reduction of standards but the wrong standards? The present Parker Morris standards are putting increased costs on tenants and local authorities. Is the Minister really saying that we shall have further discussions about this, when there is concrete evidence and there are proposals for change that have been on the table for a long time?

Mr. Freeson: Various views have been expressed about the standards. The hon. Gentleman is taking a contrary view to that of his hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith). As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is suggesting that the standards are too high and that there should be a genuine reduction. I do not accept that.

Tenants' Charter

Mr. Eyre: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of his previous statement, why provision for the introduction of a tenants' charter for council property is not contained in the present Government's legislative programme.

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of his previous statement, why provision for the introduction of a tenants' charter for council property is not contained in the present Government's legislative programme.

Mr. Shore: Before we proceed to legislation I want to give full consideration to the representations received, particularly from local authorities and their tenants. I have not yet completed this study.

Mr. Eyre: Does the Secretary of State recall that early last year, when the Government voted down a council tenants' charter Bill introduced from the Opposition side of the House, two ministerial assurances were given that a similar Bill would be introduced by the Government? In view of the Government's reluctance in this respect, will he accept notice of my intention to introduce again a similar Bill?

Mr. Shore: We shall obviously consider the content of the Bill when the hon. Gentleman introduces it. I certainly agree


that we said at that time that we were anxious to introduce a measure on this important matter, and that is what I still intend to do, as soon as possible.

Mr. Durant: The right hon. Gentleman's original proposals on this matter were welcomed on both sides of the House. Council tenants, certainly in my constituency, would like to see an extension of the powers they already have in this regard to run their own estates. Is this now another election gimmick, in the sense that it will not be brought forward but will just be talked about?

Mr. Shore: No. If we were approaching it simply in that spirit, we should produce it straight away, given the obvious attraction that the hon. Gentleman says it has. We want to consider it seriously. It affects the daily lives of many millions of people and we want to get it right. The concept of a tenants' charter covers a wide area and we have received, and are still receiving, a lot of representations on it.

Mr. Loyden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an urgency about this matter in two fields—first, in repairs, which in many local authorities are outstanding to a high degree, and, secondly, in evictions, many of which are taking place, particularly in industrial conurbations?

Mr. Shore: I certainly agree that repairs and, indeed, security of tenure are important matters, but they are not the only ones. There are the rights of tenants in relation to subletting and taking lodgers, and the important questions, for tenants, of how far they can organise their own exchanges and transfers. In addition, there is the whole question of tenant participation and management.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the Secretary of State understand that it was nine months ago that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) first sought leave to introduce this matter to the House? It carries no conviction to suggest that it takes nine months to hold consultations on a matter of this sort. As it would be given full support from the Opposition side of the House, why does the right hon. Gentleman not simply get on with it?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman should know that we published a Green Paper in July, gave people until 1st December to give their major responses, and sent out a series of follow-up consultation papers inviting further responses. The information is only just coming in.

Local Authority Mortgage

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was made available by way of local authority mortgages and loans to help people buy and improve houses in Liverpool in 1974–75, 1975–76, 1976–77 and in the current year, giving the percentage decline for each year.

Mr. Freeson: Liverpool's direct lending for 1974–75 to 1977–78 was £4.8 million, £3.7 million, £2.2 million and £1.2 million, respectively. In addition, support lending available between 1975–76 and 1977–78 totalled £2.55 million. In 1978–79. Liverpool will have £5 million for direct lending and improvement grants and for support lending. I have asked what it needs from the substantially increased amount available nationally.

Mr. Steen: Does the Minister realise that this is the principal fund to purchase and improve older houses in inner city areas, such as Liverpool? How does he reconcile the accelerated deterioration of older houses in the inner city with the statement that he has pensioned off the bulldozer?

Mr. Freeson: I find the form of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question rather obscure. I realise that there are many figures which are difficult to follow, but if the hon. Gentleman will read the text of what I have said he will realise that there is increasing provision for home lending. I am still awaiting a response to my inquiry from Liverpool about what it would require from the greatly increased support lending available from building societies in the coming year.

Council Housing Estates

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to stop local authorities building over-large council house estates and use the money saved to increase improvement grants for rundown older houses in urban and city areas.

Mr. Freeson: I refer the hon. Member to my written reply to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) on 16th December 1977.

Mr. Grant: In view of the quite deplorable decline in the number of improvement grants in the past two or three years, should not top priority be given to improving the existing stock of housing rather than to building vast new council estates? Would it not be sensible for the Minister to issue one of his famous circulars to local authorities instructing them to get their priorities right in that respect?

Mr. Freeson: I think the best answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman is that he should get from the Vote Office or from my Department—I will send it to him if he wishes—a copy of the circular on housing strategies and investment programmes that we issued not very long ago to every local authority. In that circular he will see his question answered more than fully. I shall be glad to discuss the matter further with him if he wishes.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend take steps to strengthen the legislation in respect of the allocation of improvement grants? Is he aware that builders are now, in contravention of the Housing Act 1974, taking out leases in order to obtain the £2,900 improvement grant in places such as Chelsea and Kensington, and Bath—both Tory-controlled—and that those two councils are conniving with builders to get round the Act in order that builders can start the winkling jobs they were doing before and which the Act was designed to stop?

Mr. Freeson: As my hon. Friend indicated, in the Housing Act 1974 we took a number of steps to stop the growing abuses that had arisen in the immediately preceding years. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of the allegation in the second part of his supplementary question, I shall inquire into the matter.

Sport (Ministerial Responsibilities)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any of his functions in relation to sport will be devolved under the proposed devolution legislation.

Mr. Denis Howell: My responsibilities in sports matters relate to the United

Kingdom as a whole, in co-operation with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales already exercise responsibility for sports matters in their countries, and no changes are proposed under the devolution legislation in my functions with regard to sport.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that in order to get hold of the Royal High School building the Government had to evict the Canoe Club from its premises? Will he nudge the Lord President and ask him whether devolution will bring any benefits that will in any way compensate the Canoe Club for the loss of its premises?

Mr. Howell: I certainly cannot comment on the British Canoe Club, except to say that, whatever happened, I am glad to report that canoeing is one of the sports in respect of which we are making admirable progress in international affairs. I have no doubt that this has someting to do with the fact that it is based on devolutionary considerations with United Kingdom overall control.

OTIS ELEVATOR PLANT, KIRKBY

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The potential loss of 1,000 jobs at the Otis Elevator plant in Kirkby through the Government's threat to withhold temporary employment subsidy.
This is clearly specific, in that the Government are threatening to withhold TES from Otis Elevator in Kirkby because it it alleged that the Otis company in London will be in breach of the pay guidelines if it implements the nationally agreed settlement for engineers. The Otis Elevator Company firmly denies that it is in breach of the pay guidelines.
It is clearly an important issue, since 1,000 jobs are at risk. That is important any time, anywhere. It is extremely important in a high unemployment area such as Kirkby, which has witnessed many massive redundancies in the past few


years. Its importance there cannot be exaggerated. Indeed, the loss of those jobs would be catastrophic. It is extremely important to the men and their families, to the company and to the town that the Government should not take any steps which would in any way jeopardise their jobs.
It is important, too, that we should have the opportunity to discuss the fact that the Government are threatening the company and its workers with discretionary powers which we have not debated or approved and pay guidelines which are not statutory and with which many of us, at least on the Government Benches, profoundly disagree.
Moreover, it is a fact that the Kirkby plant has settled within the pay guidelines. It seems totally unreasonable and unfair that the workers in my constituency should be victimised and punished for action which has been taken elsewhere, to which they are not a party and from which they will derive no benefits.
The urgency of this case is demonstrably clear. One thousand jobs are in jeopardy. The company has said clearly and without any qualification that redundancy notices have already been issued and will take effect from next week or in 10 days. The urgency does not need to be debated. What needs to be debated is the urgency of the Government's giving a decision, and giving it in favour of the Kirkby factory. There is no reason why the Government should not announce now that they will grant temporary employment subsidy to the Otis Elevator factory in Kirkby. A debate on this application will give the Government the opportunity to announce that decision.
Therefore, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment so that the House may urgently discuss this specific and important matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he might seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,

The retusal of Her Majesty's Government to grant temporary employment subsidy to Otis Elevator, Kirkby, so endangering 1,000 jobs.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. I remind the House, as I have done on many occasions, that it is for me to decide not whether a matter is important but whether it should take precedence over the business either today or tomorrow. I am afraid that I cannot grant the hon. Gentleman's application.

JUDGE NEIL MCKINNON (EARLY-DAY MOTION)

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter which I consider to be of fundamental importance, and I hope that you will bear with me while I explain why.
I refer to Early-Day Motion No. 155, in the name of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and many hon. Members, calling upon the Lord Chancellor to remove from office Judge Neil McKinnon. Indeed, I understand that last night a delegation of hon. Members went to see the Lord Chancellor to supplement that point of view.
I have studied page 368 of "Erskine May" where it is quite clear that hon. Members may criticise a member of the judiciary on a substantive motion. I call attention to the word "conduct", because it is in relation to his conduct that such criticism may be made. We all know that the reason for the ban upon comment upon the decisions of the judiciary is that we in this House do not seek to interfere in judicial judgments or in the operation of the law or of the courts. That rule is a rule to which I think we would all subscribe—

Mr. Skinner: Except when the dockers were got out.

Mr. Ridley: When it is perfectly clear that a substantive motion is put down calling for the dismissal of a judge simply because of a specific judgment, the criticism is not against the conduct of that judge over a period of years but against the specific judgment which he has come to. It is therefore a criticism of the operation of the judiciary, not of the conduct of the judge. If Judge McKinnon had incurred criticism because


of his personal or private behaviour over a long period, this would be the proper procedure for the House to adopt. But that is not the case, and it is clear that the motion relates not to the judge's conduct as a whole, but to one specific judgment with which hon. Members do not agree.
I submit that this is an abuse of the procedures of the House. It is a matter of such fundamental importance that it should be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure, because it will be possible to hector, bully, criticise or threaten a judge with dismissal by the means employed on this occasion on any occasion that a judgment of a judge does not meet with the favour of hon. Members in any part of the House.
This leads to an assumption that the House can decide whether the decisions of judges are to hon. Members' liking. This is in fundamental conflict with the doctrine which I enunciated that we should leave to the judiciary the interpretation of the law. I am concerned here not with right or wrong but with the implied criticism of the judge for coming to a certain decision in the race relations case, which is within the memory of the House, when there is no ground whatsoever for us to seek to criticise him.
I understand the need to have a procedure by which judges can be removed from office by this House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make the speech he would make if we entered upon the debate. He is making a point of order, which I believe he is about to conclude, and it is a point of order.

Mr. Ridley: It is a very important and genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to consider what I have said. I am not asking for a ruling at this time, but I hope that you will consider that the matter is worthy of your review, and that you may conclude that it would be wise to refer my complaints to the Select Committee on Procedure, so that full thought may be given to the important constitutional issues involved.

Mr. Alan Clark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be appropriate if someone pointed out to those hon. Members who signed the motion that their problems will be not

with the judges but with the juries, who are drawn from the public?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.
I shall give my ruling in reply to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and that may—I hope that it will—satisfy the House. Clearly the motion on the Order Paper is entirely within order. Perhaps I should be wise to say no more.

Mr. English: May I support the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in the sense that it clearly is desirable that some body like the Select Committee on Procedure should consider whether there ought to be the distinction between first-class and second-class—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said that it is in order. If the House wishes to refer this sort of thing to the Select Committee on Procedure, it must do so by a motion on the Order Paper and there must be a proper debate to decide the matter. I cannot decide it. Has the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) finished?

Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. But, as you well know, some judges are protected because they can be removed only by the decision of this House and the House of Lords. They are what I loosely referred to as first-class judges. There are other judges—JPs and second-class judges generally—who can be removed in other ways. It is foolish, I think, to say that Parliament ever intended to protect them as well as it in-intended to protect others.

Mr. Skinner: Since you have heard, Mr. Speaker, from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), suggested motives as to why some of us signed that motion, perhaps it is in order for me to explain why I and, perhaps, many others have signed that very respectable motion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that, most unusually, the hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. We are not going to debate the issue now. [Interruption.] Order. I listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said, although I did not allow him to go into all the merits of this case. We cannot discuss


the question of the judge this afternoon. Hon. Members are stating reasons why, and it is impossible to do that without getting into a discussion on the judge himself.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not want to discuss the charge or anything on that question. However, on the general question, is it not true that we all know that we have an admirable set of Clerks at the Table who will always advise hon. Members whether a motion is or is not in order? They will even—perhaps outside their normal scope—help and assist hon. Members to get it in order, and very kindly sometimes, again perhaps outside their offices, advise ways and means of doing what we want to do.
Therefore, if, as is the case, the Clerks have accepted any motion, that automatically means that Mr. Speaker has accepted it and it goes on the Order Paper. However, I agree that it may well be that an hon. Member may have objections to its being either in order or not. Is it not true that, in that situation, we have another method—namely, that any hon. Member has the right and the opportunity of going to the Clerk at the Table, discussing the matter with him, and, if need be, having the opportunity of seeing Mr. Speaker privately? If that is not satisfactory, the hon. Member has the opportunity of raising the matter on the Floor of the House.
If that were done on occasions such as this, would it not, perhaps, save embarrassment to you, Mr. Speaker, and, with great respect, to your Clerks, who do an admirable job? I advise all hon. Members to adopt that practice and then we would not have this bother.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

CLOSED SHOP (COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL DISMISSAL)

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide compensation for those dismissed for refusing to join a trade union; and for connected purposes.
Schedule 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 gives to every

employee the right not to be dismissed unfairly. An employee who is dismissed unfairly may be awarded compensation by an industrial tribunal.
The Act went on to provide that the dismissal of an employee who objected to becoming a member of a trade union would be regarded as fair unless the employee genuinely objected on grounds of religious belief, or on any reasonable grounds, to joining a trade union.
The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 preserved the protection for those who objected to joining a union on grounds of religious belief but removed the protection granted in the 1974 Act for those who objected to joining a union on reasonable grounds. The purpose of this Bill is to restore the protection granted by the 1974 Act.
This Bill has that limited object only—to provide that where a closed shop agreement comes into existence and an employee objects to joining a union on any reasonable ground his subsequent dismissal should be regarded in law as unfair, thereby entitling him to compensation.
When the 1976 Act was introduced even the Government did not understand how unfairly it would operate. I refer to the case of British Rail, and it is reasonable that we should refer to that case because, after all, the railways are owned by the Government. It is the Secretary of State who appoints the Chairman and the members of the Board of British Rail. It was British Rail which decided to conclude a closed shop agreement with the railway unions.
No sooner was the 1976 Act on the statute book than British Rail embarked on its programme of dismissals. In all, 40 employees have been dismissed, simply because they objected to joining a trade union. Because of the 1976 Act, their dismissal was regarded as being fair, but no fair-minded person could possibly believe that it was fair to dimiss, without compensation, a man who was carrying out his duties to the entire satisfaction of his employer and fellow employees, and whose sole offence was the presumed offence of a reasonable objection to joining a trade union—a requirement which did not exist and which was never in contemplation when that employee began his employment.
Of those 40 men dismissed by British Rail without compensation, seven had between 13 and 19 years' service, five had between 29 and 38 years' service and two had more than 39 years' service.
This Bill would provide that the dismissal of employees in those circumstances would be unfair and that compensation would be payable to them in exactly the same way as it is to those dismissed unfairly for other reasons. I quote with approval the words of Lord Donovan who said that an employee
should be able to succeed against the employer so long as he can show that he has reasonable grounds for refusing to join the union.
It may be argued that this Bill will affect only a few people. That may be true, but I now want to quote, with approval, what was said by the Lord President in this House on 27th January 1976, when he was Secretary of State for Employment. He said:
I entirely agree that the fact that only a few people might be involved does not mitigate the importance of the principle. If injustice were to be done to a small number, it is right that the House should take that into account. It was John Lilburne who said that what could happen to anyone could happen to everyone."—[Official Report, 27th January 1976; Vol. 904, c. 277.]
Those are not my words, they are the words of the Lord President.
One of the reasons why this Bill is necessary is that the closed shop is not a static concept. It is being extended all the time. It has been extended since the passing of the 1976 Act. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has argued that a person who does not want to join a trade union can always get another job elsewhere. That is what has been said, but it is not so easy to get another job if one is dismissed at the age of 59 or 60, as happened to some of those British Rail employees. As the closed shop is extended it becomes harder to find employment where a closed shop is not being operated. We may be nearer than we think to a situation where only a man with a union card is able to get a job. At least a person who loses his job in these circumstances ought to be entitled to compensation.
I wonder whether the Lord President's predecessor as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would have approved of what

the Lord President has done. During the recess I was re-reading Nye Bevan's book "In Place of Fear." There is a 1976, updated edition in which his widow wrote a preface from which I quote:
Nye regarded imaginative tolerance as the mark of a civilised mind.
That is an opinion on which the right hon. Gentleman ought to reflect.
I conclude with words from the final paragraph of John Stuart Mill's great essay on liberty—words which are chilling for the Labour Party, which used to be the champion of the weak against the strong but which has allowed itself to become the instrument of a new tyranny. It states:
The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it. A State which dwarfs its men in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished.
Four years ago those words would have been a proud commentary on the political career of the Leader of the House. Today, they are a mocking monument to the truth of the proposition that high office and political power can still corrupt.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. George Rodgers: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has taken this opportunity to ventilate yet again his obsession about the closed shop, utilising a whole collection of quotations, and little that was original.
On this occasion the hon. Member has put down a motion seeking leave to introduce a Bill
to provide compensation for those dismissed for refusing to join a trade union; and for connected purposes.
It is strange that he should possess such deep feelings about the right of workers not to enrol in a union and yet be totally disinterested in the freedom of the worker to join a trade union if he should so desire.
The Grunwick dispute was centred upon the entitlement of employees to take up membership of a trade union—a right that is currently being denied. To my knowledge, however, the hon. Member for Eastbourne has never spoken up for the freedom of the individual to join a trade union, nor indeed have any of his colleagues.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: And nor will they.

Mr. Rodgers: It is crystal clear that the bleatings of Opposition Members about freedom and the rights of individuals are fraudulent. The only freedom they seek is that which would allow unscrupulous employers to maximise profits by low wages and poor working conditions, and this without having to contend with the resistance of organised labour.
The proposals presented by the hon. Gentleman are quaint and curious. They are designed to provide rewards to the freeloader—the person who is prepared to accept all the advantages that have been secured by the struggles and the sacrifices of his workmates but who is not prepared to contribute to the common fund. The hon. Member is reduced to making a hero figure of this sorry specimen.

Hon. Members: What sorry specimen?

Mr. Heffer: The sorry specimens on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Rodgers: In this area the Conservative Party is schizophrenic. Its parliamentary Members are critical about people who are in receipt of social security benefits whom they consider scroungers. Yet, seemingly, they are prepared to advocate that scrounging, when practised by non-union labour, should be applauded and rewarded.
I note that no reference was made in the hon. Member's speech to the legal or medical professions, which have established the tightest of all closed shops. Could it be that the campaign against the closed shop is being conducted selectively, and that influential groups in our society are not to be attacked? Whatever his motives, and however obscure his reasoning, the hon. Member should not be surprised that we on the Government side of the House oppose his motion. I shall endeavour to explain, yet again, why we do so.
Closed shop arrangements have for many years been an accepted part of the industrial scene in Britain. They are, of course, perfectly lawful and have always been so, apart from that one short and disastrous period when the Conservative Industrial Relations Act was in force. As everyone knows, its provisions to outlaw

the closed shop proved completely unenforceable. The point seems to have been taken by the Opposition Front Bench, though I accept that the official Conservative policy on relations with the trade union movement varies from week to week and from spokesman to spokeswoman. I understand that there is no intention from that quarter to reintroduce the measures in the Industrial Relations Act which were intended to ban the closed shop.
It may be that the point has at last been taken by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, as his Bill moves away from his long-term opposition to the closed shop and seeks only to compensate those who are dismissed as a result of their refusal to join a trade union.
I welcome this evidence of growing political maturity, but the approach behind the hon. Member's motion demonstrates a total misunderstanding of the recent legislation on the issue of the closed shop. The Government are neutral. They are neutral on the closed shop and the legislation reflects that neutrality. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members obviously do not understand the legislation. A closed shop is simply a collective agreement which employers and trade unionists may find to their mutual advantage. It is up to the two sides of industry in their particular situations to decide whether to have a closed shop and on what terms.
The trade union legislation does not compel any party to conclude a closed shop agreement. If it considers it to be against its interest, so be it. Nor does it prevent any of the parties concluding such an agreement if they consider it to be advantageous. It is surely common knowledge that a great many employers, as well as trade unionists, prefer a closed shop as it creates a more stable atmosphere for bargaining agreement, the avoidance of inter-union disputes and a better chance that agreements and procedures will be adhered to.
However, as I have said, the legislation compels no party to conclude such an agreement. As matters stand the party is quite free to exclude any category of workers it feels appropriate from a closed shop agreement. The discretion is limited by only one statutory provision: that dismissal for refusal to joint a trade union


where there is a closed shop should be unfair in the case of employees with a genuine objection to membership of any union whatsoever. That is a limited exclusion on which everyone was agreed.
The hon. Member's Bill would wreck the prospect of wide-ranging industrial agreements. The suggestion that a statutory provision be introduced compelling some or all of those who conclude closed shop agreements to pay compensation to individuals who refuse to accept such an agreement would be a recipe for industrial chaos.
Perhaps those who have been misled by the malicious and misinformed Press campaign against the closed shop should invest 50p in a publication entitled "Understanding Closed Shops", which gives a fair, detailed and balanced assessment of the position. It concludes:

A closed shop may be legitimately negotiated in our society.

The booklet is published by the Church of England, which I hardly need add is not affiliated to the Labour Party or the trade union movement.

Personally, I have always considered it a privilege to belong to a trade union. Many brave and decent people—my own father included—were savagely victimised for their participation in trade union activities. Of course I resent this motion, which is deeply offensive to the principles of trade unionism. I expect that it will be rejected, and rejected emphatically.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 184.

Division No. 58]
AYES
[4.01 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mills, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Goodhew, Victor
Molyneaux, James


Banks, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Monro, Hector


Beith, A. J.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bell, Ronald
Gray, Hamish
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Benyon, W.
Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Neave, Airey


Biffen, John
Grist, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Grylls, Michael
Newton, Tony


Blaker, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hannam, John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hon Miss
Parkinson, Cecil


Braine, Sir Bernard
Haselhurst, Alan
Pattie, Geoffrey


Brittan, Leon
Hastings, Stephen
Penhaligon, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, Rt. Hon J. Enoch


Brooke, Peter
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brotherton, Michael
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howe, Rt. Hon Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Timothy


Buck, Anthony
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rathbone, Tim


Budgen, Nick
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Renton, Rt. Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Burden, F. A.
Hurd, Douglas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rifkind, Malcolm


Channon, Paul
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Rt. Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jessel, Toby
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cope, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Craig, Rt. Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Sainsbury, Tim


Crawford, Douglas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Davies, Rt. Hon J. (Knutsford)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sims, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dunlop, John
Lawson, Nigel
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Durant, Tony
Le Marchant, Spencer
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Eden, Rt. Hon Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McCrindle, Robert
Sproat, Iain


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray)
McCusker, H.
Stanley, John


Eyre, Reginald
Macfarlane, Neil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Macmillan, Rt. Hon M. (Farnham)
Stewart, Rt. Hon Donald


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stokes, John


Fell, Anthony
Marten, Neil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt. Hon Margaret




Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wall, Patrick
Younger, Hon George


Thompson, George
Watt, Hamish



Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Ian Gow and


Wakeham, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr. Hal Miller.


Walder, David (Clitheroe)






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Noble, Mike


Anderson, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Oakes, Gordon


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, John
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Graham, Te[...]
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Ovenden, John


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Park, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hardy, Peter
Parker, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert


Bates, Alf
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pendry, Tom


Bean, R. E.
Heffer, Eric S.
Perry, Ernest


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hooley, Frank
Phipps, Dr Colin


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Horam, John
Radice, Giles


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Roderick, Caerwyn


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rooker, J. W.


Buchan, Norman
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sever, John


Buchanan, Richard
John, Brynmor
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Campbell, Ian
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silverman, Julius


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skinner, Dennis


Carmichael, Neil
Judd, Frank
Small, William


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kerr Russell
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Snape, Peter


Coleman, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Spriggs, Leslie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Corbett, Robin
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cowans, Harry
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Strang, Gavin


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cryer, Bob
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Loyden, Eddie
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dalyell, Tam
Luard, Evan
Tinn, James


Davidson, Arthur
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Tomlinson, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
McCartney, Hugh
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McElhone, Frank
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dempsey, James
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Doig, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Ward, Michael


Dormand, J. D.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Weitzman, David


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


Eadie, Alex
Madden, Max
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Edge, Geoff
Marks, Kenneth
White, James (Pollok)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Whitehead, Phillip


English, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitlock, William


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Woodall, Alec


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Molloy, William
Woof, Robert


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. Ivor Clemitson and


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Mr. Bruce Grocott.


George, Bruce
Newens, Stanley

Question accordingly negaitved.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee

[Progress, 10th January]

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Tam Da'yell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. When yesterday some of us made representations to you that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) should be allowed his starred amendment—which I gather was without precedent and, to be brought into order, had to be amended by a manuscript amendment—we frankly did not have the foresight to realise that this would end up by excluding from discussion many other matters. I do not particularly quibble that the three amendments which I was due to move fell, but I think that the House of Commons is not carrying out its function if a host of important other financial matters—the very guts of the Bill—in Clauses 43–59 go undiscussed. Incidentally, I completely acquit the Minister of State of shirking discussion of any of the clauses; that is not the complaint.
The Leader of the House, who has done us the courtesy of being present, can take two views. He can either say to us "Tough luck"—as I suppose he is entitled to do—or he can be generous and make some arrangements for proper parliamentary discussion of these vital clauses. It comes to a pretty pass when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) becomes so desperate that he feels driven to express the hope that their Lordships may do part of the job which ought to be done by the House of Commons. When that position is reached, it is time for the Lord President to take notice.
My other request is very simple and modest, yet may not receive much good will from the Government Front Bench. All hon. Members know that most of the amendments have ministerial and Civil Service comment on them. I suggest

that, in the cause of sensible discussion outside this House, such comments on amendments not debated might be available in the Library so that we could study what Ministers would have said, had they had the opportunity to say it.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Yesterday we should have discussed Clauses 42–60 and Schedule 9, and also 47 selected amendments. In the event, we discussed just two amendments. I appreciate that we cannot go back over those amendments—we have now gone by them in the Committee stage. However, the Chair has selected New Clause 15, which deals largely with financial provisions. If we have the opportunity, at a later stage, to debate New Clause 15, it might be some sort of remedy for our having failed to debate the whole of the financial provisions of the Bill.
Although we cannot go back on amendments, the new clauses have been allotted, in the guillotine programme, the 13th and 14th days. I ask for an assurance that New Clause 15, which has already been selected as a proper and appropriate clause for debate, should be debated when we reach new clauses. If not, the Chair—and I say this with great respect—alters the guillotine programme by selecting a new clause and putting it alongside amendments earlier in the Bill.
The programme assures us that we can discuss new clauses on the 13th and 14th days. I seek an assurance that we shall be permitted to debate New Clause 15—already properly selected as a proper clause for debate—when we reach the proper stage in the guillotine programme, the 13th and 14th days.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. It seems to me that it would be most unfortunate if the whole question of financing of the Assembly were not debated in the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has hit upon a way which might make that possible without bending the rules.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is there a quorum for journalists in this House? There are only 13 up there, in the Press Gallery, yet they are always complaining that there is no one on the Floor of the House. Who pays them?

The Chairman: Order. The Chair—and indeed the Committee itself—has no official recognition of anyone in the Committee except the right hon. and hon. Members present.

Mr. Francis Pym: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton, I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to his hon. Friend's intervention. As he will recall, I mentioned the point yesterday afternoon, when you decided to select an amended amendment. We realised that that would take an unexpected amount of extra time, but we never visualised that it would take five hours, or whatever it was. The result was in effect that 18 clauses and one schedule went undebated, and, contrary to what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) thinks, in four cases there are parts of clauses which another place will be precluded from debating or amending. It will not, there fore, be possible in those cases for what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) hoped for to take place.
But that is not the point. In view of what happened yesterday, and the magnitude of the undebated clauses, their importance and the fact that we expected that we would get into difficulties, it is for the Leader of the House to say whether he can help the Committee by finding at least another day when we may consider further the financial provisions of this important and fundamental Bill.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. New Clause 15 having been selected, I understand that under the rules of the House it remains selected, despite the fact that the amendments with which it was grouped fell under the guillotine—as the grouping is purely for the convenience of the Committee—and that it will come up for consideration during the period allocated under the timetable motion for new clauses. If that is correct, I ask the Leader of the House, in view of what happened yesterday, to consider through the usual channels putting a new motion before the Committee, perhaps extending the period for new clauses by the one day which we virtually lost yesterday for discussion of the main financial provisions.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) perhaps went too far in asking

the right hon. Gentleman to publish the Government's private comments on the new clauses, but we might obtain a similar effect in enlightening public opinion outside the Committee by having a general debate on the financial questions arising out of the Bill on a separate occasion in Government time. We cannot expect the country to take the Bill seriously if the Committee treats it with the frivolity with which it has treated Part IV.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I shall comment in a moment on what the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) asked. But I would repudiate anything that the right hon. Gentleman said about the Committee's treating this matter frivolously. I do not believe that anyone who listened to the debate yesterday would say that it was a frivolous debate. It was an important debate, properly conducted, as I think the Committee would agree.
The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that my response will be the same as other Leaders of the House have, I dare say, given in similar circumstances when requests have been made for the extension of guillotine timetable motions already agreed by the House. I do not think that that would be a reasonable way to proceed.
What happened yesterday was that a request was perfectly reasonably made to the Chair by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who was moving the amendment. The Chair ruled on the way in which the debate should proceed. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, who was in charge of the proceedings from the Government's point of view, responded, and assisted the Committee to have the debate in the manner requested. I do not think that there are good grounds for saying that on that account the timetable motion should be altered.
There will be later times when these matters can be discussed. There is a Business Committee of the House that deals with such questions, but I cannot make any promise, or hold out any likelihood, of an increase in the considerable time that has already been allocated.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. The right hon. Gentleman said that I referred to the debate yesterday as frivolous. I did not. I think that the debate was serious and important. But what I think the country will regard as frivolous is the fact that we have not debated the key financial provisions of a constitutional Bill when the most likely possibility of the Bill damaging the unity of the United Kingdom lies in the financial arrangements as between the devolved Assembly and the House of Commons. It is that constitutional importance that makes our failure to debate these provisions so dangerous and damaging. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows in his heart that, in dismissing this matter with his usual charm and reasonableness, he is aiding and abetting in this frivolous neglect of the dangers that lie ahead for this country.

Mr. J. Grimond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I ask the Leader of the House to consider this matter again. It is true that when the timetable proposals were put before the House they appeared not to be ungenerous, bearing in mind that we had already discussed some of the provisions of the Bill last year. Also, I wholly agree that, as always happens in Committee stages, there is a great deal of repetition and Second Reading points are constantly reiterated.
Nevertheless, yesterday a very important new amendment was selected. No one can possibly argue that it was not a very important amendment which deserved several hours of debate—which it received. This must have thrown out the allocation of time programme. To my mind, the issue is nothing to do with whether the Chair accepts the amendment but whether the country would like the House to give more time to serious consideration of the financial clauses of the Bill. I suspect that it will consider the matter again and allocate some extra time.
I cannot believe that a Parliament which came back a month late and which, notoriously, does not have a great deal of controversial legislation except this Bill, the Wales Bill and the European Assembly Elections Bill before it, could not afford a little extra time to consider these matters.
I also wish to mention this matter of the new clauses. As I understand it, it is clear that the new clauses remain upon the Amendment Paper and will in due course be debated in accordance with the timetable motion. I am interested in, among others, New Clause 8. It was down for debate together with an earlier amendment which was not reached, but it remains upon the Paper and, subject to how much discussion there is on earlier new clauses, will be debated. It is a new clause of some interest to the public in my constituency and I want to reassure them on this point.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I do not wish to question the quality of yesterday's debate. That is not the point. The point is surely that when the Business Committee met—after all, the Business Committee is composed of experienced politicians—it was no doubt assumed, as indeed it must have been assumed, that the amendment which was subsequently altered and created a precedent by being taken yesterday, appeared to be out of order. This is because it was simply not in order, it did not fulfil requirement. Therefore, on the question of the allocation of time, surely the fact is that it cannot have been envisaged that the amendment would absorb one day. Since it has absorbed one day in this way, it is surely reasonable to suppose that hon. Members can be put in a position of being able to explain to the country that at least—and even under the wholly regrettable guillotine procedure—we shall have one day's discussion on the essential financial provisions for this major constitutional measure. If we fail to get even one day, there is no way in which members of the Government, their supporters or members of the Opposition can explain to the country how it comes about that, under the guillotine procedure, we pass a major measure with no consideration whatever of its financial provisions.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. My right hon. Friend the Lord President on so many occasions has quite rightly complained in the House about the way the European Communities Bill was pushed through and has said that there was insufficient time devoted to a major constitutional question. It


seems absurd that clauses of great importance on financial provisions and on other matters can go through the Committee without any discussion at all. What on earth are we doing? I appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider his attitude. We must have greater and lengthier discussion than we are having at the moment. What is happening on this question is an absolute scandal.

Mr. George Gardiner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. May I make a related point and ask the Lord President whether, at any time when he gives more serious thought to the complaint that has just been made, he will direct his mind to the danger that the parliamentary scandal of yesterday will be repeated during the group of amendments we are about to discuss?
We are aware that it is a group which, under the timetable resolution, covers the best part of three days. You have already made a provisional selection of amendments, with which I do not quarrel in any way, Mr. Murton. It is hoped that, as we make progress, you will add to that provisional list to cover the time remaining for this group. The group includes Schedule 10, which is a vital part of the Bill, setting out all matters to be devolved—and some which are not to be devolved—to the proposed Scottish Assembly.
The initial selection you have made covers the Scottish National Party amendment which seeks to add matters to the list of devolved questions. But lower down the Amendment Paper are amendments to Schedule 10, covering such matters as airports, fishing, forestry, tourism and the inland waterways, the reorganisation of which, in normal times, would merit for each a separate Bill. It would be a parliamentary scandal of the first order if matters of this kind were to be excluded from the discussion that we are about to embark upon.

Mr. John Mackintosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I appreciate the difficulty facing the Chair in this matter, but I wonder whether it would meet some of the points being raised and facilitate debate if a stricter ruling could be applied on matters that are basically Second Reading points. A great many of the speeches involve Second Reading points, and we

ought to concentrate on the detailed contents of the clauses. I know that it is difficult to distinguish between the two because they run into each other, and I appreciate the great difficulty in which this places the Chair, but I wonder whether a tighter ruling would enable more amendments to be debated.

Mr. Dalyell: In fairness to the Chair, some of us should repudiate the description of yesterday's proceedings by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who called them a parliamentary scandal. It is certainly not part of the case that I put forward that it was a parliamentary scandal. After all, a number of us, including myself, asked you to do what you did, Mr. Murton. The trouble was that never in our wildest dreams did we imagine that the amendment would take up the whole day. Perhaps we should have had greater foresight. It was not a parliamentary scandal in that you were asked unanimously to do what you did by members of the Committee. If people say that it was a parliamentary scandal, we should have had the wit to object, which I regret not doing. But that is by the by.
May I ask three things of the Lord President, Mr. Murton? First, in the course of his intervention he said that there would be later opportunities for discussion of these financial matters. May I ask which, and when we would have later opportunities?
Secondly, may I return to the question that I put to him—whether, in the interests of open government, we could have a peep or a look at some of the answers we would have received had our amendments been moved? After all, it is not a matter of national security; it is an argument about constitutional debate. One presumes that the work has been done by the Civil Service. The documents are available and should have been placed in the Library. There is a respectable case for so doing.
Thirdly, if I may give an example of the difficulty we are up against, it may be within your recollection that on Monday—and here I claim some foresight—seeing that there would be time problems, I used the Public Accounts Committee debate to raise the whole question of a Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General under the heading of the cost of


collection as faced by the Inland Revenue and raised by the Public Accounts Committee in its Report. Very understandably, Mr. Murton, you took me up on this and said that discussion of the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General should wait until the following day, and that I should not anticipate the following day's business.
As an example of what we have not discussed, the Committee should realise that we have learnt nothing about this new creation—a Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General. In fact, this means setting up a whole new Department, because we cannot just hive off part of the Comptroller and Auditor General's existing Department, transplant it in Edinburgh and expect it to work. That is the kind of thing that the Commons should be discussing, and we have not had the opportunity to do so.

Mr. George Gardiner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. May I correct a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)? When I referred to yesterday's proceedings as a parliamentary scandal, I was certainly not commenting on your decision to select the amendment in question. I was referring to the fact that in a very important financial part of the Bill whole clauses went through without debate, some of them incapable of amendment in another place. My submission is that that amounts to government by diktat and not by proper parliamentary process. That is a parliamentary scandal.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will look at the way in which the debate has developed. Those of us who supported the guillotine felt that there was some case that the House should at least reach a decision. But yesterday's deliberations have proved that important clauses are not to be considered. The whole of yesterday's debate, which was allocated to those clauses, took place on two amendments, but one of those was moved almost at the last stage, because it was ruled to be out of order and was then put in order.
An important case about the possible alternative means of raising finance was

developed. It would be a mistake if clauses relating to financial provision were not debated. If that issue is to be put to the country, those who have to reach a decision about the outcome of the Bill will say "The House of Commons has not given it proper consideration."
I can understand the feeling that we must reach a conclusion about the Bill, but if there is to be a timetable motion stating that certain clauses must be dealt with by certain days we might as well think of time-limiting speeches. I sat through the whole of yesterday's proceedings. We did not reach the clause on which I wished to intervene. I am in a special position, because after the Scotland Bill we shall have the Wales Bill, which has only seven days allotted to its compared with 14 days for the Scotland Bill. We have already been told that some issues will not be raised on the Wales Bill because they will already have been raised on the Scotland Bill.
Therefore, a difficult situation is developing. Important clauses are not being adequately discussed. I hope that in view of what has happened so far my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, together with the Committee dealing with the timetable motion, will reconsider whether the Bill can be deal with in a better manner, so that although the first part has not been dealt with adequately the remaining clauses are properly considered by the Committee and the House.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: When the timetable motion was accepted it was understood that hon. Members would have to curtail their remarks on a number of matters, and should not make excessive interventions and excessively long speeches. Looking at the Official Report of the debate to date, I see the same names over and over again. The hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) have been making identical speeches. One could take columns of their speeches and reproduce them on every amendment. Is it not a fact that some hon. Members, by raising issues in this manner, are inciting the other place to destroy the Bill or to hold it up unnecessarily?

The Chairman: Order. I appeal to the Committee. We have now spent 20 minutes dealing with points of order, and this is eating into the time allocated.
Perhaps I may deal first with those points which do not concern me. I am bound by a resolution of the House, and that is a matter which is not for the Chair. The right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) mentioned, on a point of order, the question of the Business Committee. At the stage when the Business Committee was deliberating the matter of time, I think I am right in saying that the amendment which has offended was not on the Order Paper.
On the question of Second Reading points, may I say to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) that where it is of no direct concern to the Chair, he can only pray, not exhort? If I may say so, he put a commendable view that discussion might be confined more strictly to the subject matter of the amendments.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) raised the matter of making further selection. The second group—if I might put it in the vernacular—of "undevolving" has already been chosen. That matter has been dealt with.
In answer to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), I remind him that new clauses are often dependent on amendments. But, of course, when I select the new clauses, I shall consider on their merits all those which are still in order. I hope that that will meet with the right hon. Gentleman's concurrence. The point about publication raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is not a matter for the Chair.
I sincerely hope that I have dealt with all the points that have been raised. I suggest that we might now consider the amendments.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton may we ask the Leader of the House to comment, first, on publication, and, secondly, explain what he meant by "later opportunities"?

Mr. Foot: I say this in no censorious manner, but points of orders are not raised necessarily to ask Leaders of the House or hon. Members in charge of Bills to reply to such questions. It would

involve a big extension of the use of the provision of notes if they were always put in the Library. It would raise other questions, too. So I cannot help my hon. Friend in that direction. I suggest, as you yourself, Mr. Murton, suggested, that we proceed to the debates on the amendments which have been tabled.

Mr. Pym: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I want to put on record that the Leader of the House should be aware from the comments made from all parts of the House that a situation has been reached in respect of the consideration of this Bill that the Committee regards as unsatisfactory. We know perfectly well the problems of the guillotine, but the fact remains that, for one reason or another, 18 clauses and one schedule went undebated yesterday. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to the European Communities Bill, to which the Minister of State often likes to refer, but on that occasion there was consideration of every clause.
I know that there are difficulties and problems with guillotines. I accept that. But what is happening here is a procedure which is, quite literally, unacceptable and is unjustifiable by Members outside this House. I expressed the view yesterday that, in their whole handling of this important and difficult matter, the Government have caused this Parliament to let the United Kingdom down. That is the view that I take. One expression of the Government's handling is what happened yesterday, when so many vital matters, now unamendable and undiscussable in either House, went through on the nod. That cannot conceivably be right. The right hon. Gentleman responsible as he is for Government legislation, is also the Leader of the House of Commons and has to take into account the interests of every party and every individual Member in the House. After that exchange, blandly to say that we should get back to the consideration of the Bill—which, of course, we shall do in a few minutes—is quite inadequate. A very serious matter indeed has arisen from this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman should take that fact firmly on board.

Mr. Foot: I shall naturally respond to what the right hon. Gentleman said. Of course, I understand that, when debates


take place under timetables, hon. Members in various parts of the House often protest and often have a good case for doing so. I am not complaining because anybody has protested. All I am saying is that I repudiate any suggestion that what happened yesterday was an unsatisfactory development in the debate in the Committee. What happened yesterday was that the Chair went out of its way to accommodate the requests of the Committee, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State in charge of the Bill—[Interruption.]—nobody is complaining about that, we are told, but that was not exactly the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman was protesting.
4.45 p.m.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman voted against the original motion. The House voted for the motion. We are carrying out the procedure accepted by the House and I suggest that we should proceed upon those lines. Discussions can also take place in the Business Committee, as also happens normally under guillotine measures. It is only fair to say that the fact that the programme was altered yesterday, because of the desire of the Chair and of the Government to accede to the requests of hon. Members, is not a reason for extending the amount of time allocated to the Bill as a whole.

Mr. Pym: That may not be a reason for extending the amount of time allocated to the Bill. But a good reason for doing so is the fact that 18 clauses and one schedule remain undiscussed and are now undebatable and unamendable. That is unsatisfactory.
Of course we are all bound by the decision we came to on the timetable motion, but does that not now need reconsiderating? Have not circumstances now shown that what we originally feared at the time has proved, unfortunately, to be correct? We are asking that the Leader of the House—he cannot give a response now—should at least take on board what has happened, reconsider the matter and see whether he cannot find some way of fulfilling his responsibilities as Leader of the House to the whole House.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I should like to support the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr.

Pym) in his remarks and refresh the minds of both the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the House. Does not the Leader of the House recollect that a similar circumstance arose during the passage of the Industrial Relations Bill? The then Tory Government, including the right hon. Gentleman, were warned by the Labour Opposition of the dangers and the problems that would be created if they did not listen to the voice of the House.
It is true, as the Leader of the House said, that some weeks ago we agreed to a timetable motion. The same was true of the Industrial Relations Bill. We warned the then Government that there would be ructions in the country about the Industrial Relations Bill. They did not want to listen to us. They were too pigheaded and dogmatic and they listened instead to their civil servants. Now this Government are doing exactly the same. What I am trying to say to the Leader of the House is that when he sat on the Front Bench below the Gangway—incidentally I preferred him to be sitting there rather than where he now sits—he was one of those who warned that the House of Commons must listen and that Governments must listen. He must listen. He has heard a member of the national executive of his own party speak. He has heard his own Back Benchers speak—those who supported the guillotine motion and those who did not. He has heard leaders of the Tory Party. They have different aproaches to this subject. Obviously they now have different positions. Had the Tories listened to us I am sure that the three-day week and all the problems that arose from the Industrial Relations Act would not have occurred. Be that as it may, we would have had a better Bill.
The Leader of the House said that we can, perhaps, continue discussions. Why not then, be more forthcoming? Why not say now that he will agree to call the Business Committee and have a discussion, without commitment, of course? He can put the point to the Opposition and to the Liberals. The Lib-Lab pact is in on this and my right hon. Friend has the other half of the Government—[Interruption.] All right—the better half of the Government. Why cannot he be a little more forthcoming and say, without commitment—that he will offer to call the Business Committee to see


whether it can come to some arrangement? That Committee will report back to us and then, perhaps, we can make progress. He will then have shown that he has been fair and reasonable.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. Are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen desirous of continuing with this point of order?

Mr. Graham Page: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Murton, for your ruling with regard to new clauses for which I asked much earlier this afternoon. As I understand it the ruling is that if a new clause has been selected and grouped with some amendments, and if that group has not been debated, the new clause may be debated, subject to your selection at the right period according to the guillotine timetable. That means that such new clauses as the important one which has already been mentioned on the Shetlands and the important one on financial provisions may well come up for debate at a later stage. That makes it all the more important that the programme should be reconsidered and that time should be given for those new clauses which we have passed undebated and which may need to be debated later.

The Chairman: I think that it is important to put one caveat to what I said. That is that we must be certain that the new clauses can stand on their own. I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands what I mean by that.

Mr. Iain Sproat: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Of course we are all anxious to get on to the next business today but we cannot leave it in its present unsatisfactory position. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—with him wearing his hat as Leader of the House and not as the Minister in charge of the Bill—to recognise that his duty is to take the feeling of the Committee. Only one hon. Member who has spoken has been in favour of the present situation. That was a Scottish National Party Member who criticised Members for speaking in more than one debate. He is the only right hon. Member or hon. Member from either side of the House who thinks that the Leader of the House is acting properly.
I earnestly beseech the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter. In the past he has been fond of saying that when the House of Commons gets itself into a difficulty it can get itself out of it. He knows that these financial provisions are at the very core of the Bill. We cannot debate them here. The other place cannot debate them. We shall go to a referendum with these provisions undebated in any Committee stage manner. That is totally unsatisfactory.
It would be perfectly easy for the right hon. Gentleman to be forthcoming now and say that he accepts the Committee's view in this matter. We have the evidence of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), who said that he thought when the guillotine was passed that it gave a fair distribution of time. Now he says that it does not give a fair distribution of time. We see that. That is the sense of the Committee. It is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, to take that sense and come back to us with new proposals.

Mr. Foot: In my earlier intervention I said that these matters could be discussed in the Business Committee. I also said—I do not want anyone to be misled—that I did not believe it to be possible for the Government to propose in such a Business Committee that the time for the Bill should be extended. In the Business Committee there can of course be a discussion about the allocation of the time, and it may well be that the Opposition and others on the Committee will wish to make proposals to ensure that discussion takes place on matters that they think should have had more discussion in the time allocated so far. That is all open for discussion in the Business Committee.
However, I cannot propose—and I think that it would be misleading the Committee to do so—that extra time can be allocated. I repeat that what happened yesterday was not the Government's riding rough-shod over the House or attempting to do so in any sense whatsoever. What happened yesterday was that a debate took place in the very form which right hon. and hon. Members had asked for. The response from the Government assisted the debate to take place in that manner.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I am surprised that this series of points of order is taking place, because I understood that the arrangement of business had been broadly satisfactory and that the sub-division of the time allotted under the timetable order was adequate. But perhaps we might be able to take a day from the Third Reading debate and apply it to the Committee stage, if that were the wish of the House.

The Chairman: That is a matter for the Business Committee, not for the Chair.

Mr. Ian Gow: Further to the point of order. It is quite indefensible for the Lord President of the Council to tell the Committee that he cannot take any initiative in rearranging the time allotted to this Bill. The Lord President himself recognises that for the House of Commons to go through the farce of approving, without debate, whole clauses and schedules is most unsatisfactory in terms of law, and thoroughly damaging to the reputation of this House.
If there is one reason for which the Lord President above all others ought to reconsider what he said to the Committee this afternoon it is that the longer he continues to assert that there is no time available and that there are no means by which the Government can reallocate time, the greater he brings this House and all our procedures into disrepute.
This ought not to happen on a constitutional measure of this importance. We beg him to reconsider what he said and to adopt a much more understanding attitude, not only to us, but to those outside who are watching with increasing cyniscism what is going on with regard to this Bill.

The Chairman: Order. I must remind the House that these points of order are essentially business questions. I urge the Committee to continue with the amendments before it.

Clause 61

DEVOLVED MATTERS

Mr. Mackintosh: I beg to move Amendment No. 540, in
page 29, line 17, leave out from 'matter' to end of line 28 and insert shall be all the current

statutory duties, functions and obligations of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Scottish Office'.

The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 389, in
page 29, line 18, at end insert or is necessary for the peace, order and good government of Scotland and is not specifically excepted or reserved in Part II of Schedule 10 of this Act or in section 62 of this Act '.
No. 390, in
page 29, line 23, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—
' (a) any matter over which the Assembly have legislative competence'.

Mr. Mackintosh: I shall attempt to leave out Second Reading points and concentrate on detailed matters which might be more appropriate for the Committee stage.
The amendment is concerned with a broad issue, which I believe the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) will also raise to some extent at least. The issue is that of the whole question of the presentation of the Bill and the extent of the functions devolved to the Scottish Assembly.
It seems to me to be an important feature of any good legislation that it shows clearly what it is doing. One of my concerns about the Bill is that it is by no means clear precisely what is being devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and what is being retained by the Scottish Office, which will still be located in Edinburgh under the Secretary of State.
The Bill should follow the precedent of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, or the Irish measure proposed in 1972, by which certain functions were retained for Westminster, and it was clear that all other functions were transferred to the devolved Parliament. One knew where one stood, because the position was made clear at the front of the Bill. One knew what was conceded, and what was kept back.
The alternative procedure is to devolve areas of activity to the proposed Assembly—education, health, housing, and so on—and set those out at the front of the Bill, which again would make the position clear.
What we have here, however, is a reference in Clause 61 to a schedule


which refers to groups of responsibilities, some of which are devolved, and some of which are retained. It would be hard for any interested member of the public concerned with Scottish or British Government quickly to go through the Bill and say clearly which sections of the present powers of St. Andrew's House are to be devolved and which sections are to be retained.
As an example, I recall being visited not long ago by the people who run the Scottish colleges of agriculture. They said "For certain purposes we are agricultural and undevolved. For other purposes we are educational and devolved. Some of our students are getting what is strictly speaking, agricultural training, others are getting university degrees in agriculture, and others still are getting educational diplomas. We think that our educational functions are devolved. Our agricultural functions stay with the Secretary of State. Our research functions we do not know about, but we think that the land we farm—because land tenure and management are devolved—is devolved."
That is the kind of difficulty of adjustment that is entailed when a sub-division exists within a Department such as the Scottish Office, part of which is devolved, and part of which is retained, and when institutions exist in Scotland which straddle the two functions.
5.0 p.m.
The question I want to put to the Committee and to the Minister of State is: is it not possible to obtain a clearer and more satisfactory division of those functions that are devolved and those that are not? The first thing that will occur to most people is that the logical distinction and division—irrespective of one's approval or disapproval of devolution—is to say that if it makes sense in the first instance to devolve the functions to the Secretary of State, on the ground that this is a Scottish area of administration which would be better dealt with not by a Whitehall Ministry but by Scottish civil servants and a Scottish Ministry operating from Edinburgh, then already a prima facie case has been made out for this sort of thing being devolved to a Scottish Assembly.
It is extremely difficult intelligently to produce reasons why there is a distinction

between things that are sensibly to be administered and handled in Scotland but not by a Scottish Assembly. I have tried to think of the reasons for this divide within the functions of the Secretary of State. Which are the criteria which have actuated the Minister of State and the Government in doing this? There are two possible reasons for saying that some of the functions of the Secretary of State could be withheld from the Scottish Assembly, neither of which is very satisfactory. The first major reason that strikes me—I would be grateful if the Minister of State would confirm it as it would be interesting to know the criteria on which this sub-division within the Secretary of State's functions was made-is that some of these functions of the Secretary of State have international implications particularly with regard to the application of EEC regulations to Scottish affairs.
I presume that the biggest single area of administration which is particularly and specially Scottish, but which is not devolved to the Assembly, is agriculture because the vast bulk of the Department of Agriculture's work is at the moment under the influence of regulations and directives coming from Brussels. If that is the case it is an unnecessary reason for not devolving.
The Minister of State has, I understand, recently paid a visit to Germany. He will have seen that the German Government after all these years in the Common Market has no collective Ministry of Agriculture with executive powers. Its Ministry of Agriculture is purely responsible for Brussels. The entire application of all Brussels regulations and directives on agriculture is done by the 11 Ministries of Agriculture of the 11 separate Lander of Germany which operate perfectly satisfactorily within the rules and regulations laid down by the EEC.
An interesting point is that many of the directives of the EEC are not absolutely specific. They say to the British Government that certain objectives must be fulfilled, which gives a slight margin as to how those objectives should be fulfilled. That is precisely the sort of case where a Scottish devolved Administration could be entirely within the Brussels directives but nevertheless might perhaps want to implement a directive on marginal farms for hill areas, or


special forms of aid to marginal agriculture, in a fashion slightly different from the implementation which might make sense to the English Ministry in London.
I see no reason whatever why the activities of a Scottish devolved Minister of Agriculture could not be easily retained for legality purposes within the framework of Brussels regulations. I cannot see any other reason for not devolving agriculture other than its possible connection with international relationships.
If I am right about this, we would be in a very difficult position because increasing areas of administration of other devolved aspects would no doubt in future come under Brussels regulations. Therefore, I would have thought that it is a difficult line to draw between those aspects which are preponderantly European and those which are preponderantly British and could be devolved to a Scottish Assembly.
The second reason why the Minister of State may have withheld certain powers from the devolved Assembly and kept them with the Secretary of State is that some of them relate to the local application of economic planning, of regional incentives and the whole regional economic policy. When this happens it not only entrenches on some Brussels provisions but also entrenches on the question—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I am interrupting the discourse of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer).

Mr. Heffer: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I am absolutely fascinated by the number of journalists who are present. At times we have been criticised by journalists—there are now eight present, yesterday there were only three—for not listening to this House discussing important constitutional matters. Some of them have probably come into the Gallery, looked to see how many were present and have gone back to write their stories.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. That is not a devolved duty of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Heffer: It fascinates me, that is all.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I thought that my discourse was boring him so much that he was

having to regale himself with other conversations.
I come back to the matter under discussion. If one of the major areas to be retained by the Secretary of State, which is not being conceded to the Assembly, is economic and regional planning, I think one reason is its connection with Europe although it is a fluctuating connection. There is a purely political consideration in this regard. It is precisely this area of economic regional planning which the Assembly could use to the special advantage of Scotland which has alarmed some of my hon. Friends who represent the North, North-East and other parts of England and may have led them to feel that if this were a devolved power it migh concede too much to the Scottish Assembly. This would cause considerable alarm and lead my hon. Friends not to want to vote for the measure.
If that is the case it seems that two points arise. It seems exceedingly unlikely that this is now true because it must be clear that the Assembly will not have any significantly larger amount of finance to devote to any subject other than what it is given in a block grant. If it gets a block grant there are already methods of control with regard to the allocation of that money. An Assembly which tried to spend disproportionate sums on industrial advancement at the expense of other forms of welfare would not only meet with punishment from possibly the Scottish electorate but would also need approval under the block grant for this purpose.
I do not believe in this kind of financial control, but it has been retained by the Minister of State. I do not see that this is a reason for not devolving these particular economic powers.
I come to a further point with regard to economic powers. Not only do I think that there is no great risk in devolving these powers but I think there is a strong case for saying that if some of them are basically United Kingdom powers, and basically a question of discouraging development in parts of England, Wales or other parts of Britain so that development can go to Scotland, the proper place for those powers is Whitehall. The proper place for these powers in that case is not with the devolved Secretary of State. They were devolved to the Secretary of


State for Scotland for political pressures of a kind that have basically produced the Bill. We ought never to be in a position to say either that these things appertain to Scotland—in which case they should be devolved—or that they have United Kingdom connotations, in which case they should go back to Whitehall.
What we should not have is a residual arrangement which is administratively devolved to Scotland but not under the control of the Assembly. I should like quickly to give my reasons for making this point. It may seem counter to the flow of devolution, but it is not. The reasons are that in the first place the whole future of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland is something about which we have gone round and round, but it is not satisfactorily solved at the moment. Many of my hon. Friends, particularly those below the Gangway, have often said—I think that Ministers have often said this—that it is of tremendous importance to have a Secretary of State in the Cabinet speaking up for Scotland on economic and regional development matters. My guess is that if this Assembly is in any way successful and develops political power and punch of its own, whoever is the first Secretary will be called and will call himself the Prime Minister of Scotland, and he will want at least what the late Sir Brian Faulkner wanted. If there is a crucial shut-down of a major industrial plant he will go to No. 10 Downing Street about it. He will not walk over the corridor to see the Secretary of State, whose clout in the Cabinet will depend on administering half the Department of Agriculture and half the Department concerned with economic affairs.
Let us he quite clear that a Minister's weight in the Cabinet depends on either his standing in the Government—whether he is one of those very powerful posts of Lord Privy Seal or President of the Council—or whether he is a strong departmental Minister spending, as the Secretary of State does now, £3,000 million with tremendous punch and with a weighty Department behind him.
If the Act goes through the Secretary of State will shed to the Scottish Assembly three quarters of his money and his responsibilities. The Secretary of State will sit in the Cabinet wearing two or three little task hats. One will be to

let the Cabinet know whether anything is going wrong up in Scotland. That will happen only rarely, we hope, when there is a major clash or row—

Mr. Robert Hughes: He will be very busy.

Mr. Mackintosh: If he is busy, the whole thing will collapse and fall to pieces. But we are not now discussing the merits. We are discussing how the Act will work. He will be wearing in the Cabinet a hat representing half the responsibilities of the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and half the present functions of the Secretary of State dealing with economic affairs. That will be his clout as a departmental Minister.
I doubt very much whether such a Secretary of State is the kind of person to put the case for Scotland to the United Kingdom Government in the event of a major problem of economic development. I think that the case should be put by the Scottish First Secretary or Prime Minister, who will no doubt be on the aeroplane right away down to London to say "We cannot face the closure of this factory or the destruction of this industry".
My alternative suggestion is that these powers, if they are British powers, basically should be given to the Secretary of State for Industry, who should be looked at the matter in a United Kingdom context, as the House is still responsible to the United Kingdom, and saying that in this case Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and should not suffer in this way.
This attempt to create a rump Secretary of State with a little fragmented Department which is partly administrative and partly watching over the Assembly is to create a very weak Department, one which would rapidly be a candidate for the exclusion of its head from the Cabinet. That is inevitable. I do not go along with Sir Richard Marsh's recent statement that no one would really want to be a Secretary of State.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend not recall the exchange of letters between the then Prime Minister who first set up the office of Secretary of State and the man he chose, in which he said that it was not a very onerous office but


that he would like him to do it? Ever since that day every Secretary of State has increased his clout. Whatever the functions of the next Secretary of State under devolution, whatever his job will be, he will develop his own clout according to the system under which he has to work.

Mr. Mackintosh: I do not think that that will happen because the whole history of the office of the Secretary of State has been without the existence of the devolved Assembly. The whole strength of the office of the Secretary of State ever since it was created was that he was the man who spoke for Scotland. If the Bill becomes law two people will speak for Scotland. I suggest that the louder voice will be that of the person elected by and responsible to the Scottish Assembly. If he is a tough character—someone like my hon. Friend the Member for Walton—can one imagine him speaking to a junior Cabinet official? Certainly not. He will deal only with the Prime Minister, with whom he will demand an audience. If a United Kingdom matter arises it will be dealt with in the normal way in the United Kingdom Cabinet.
There is one other complication. It is profoundly unsatisfactory to draw a line through the existing Department in St. Andrew's House and say that civil servants falling on one side of the line are responsible to the head of the Scottish Assembly and those on the other side to the Secretary of State, especially when the Civil Service may be responsible on one side to a Tory leader and on the other side to a Labour leader.
I am delighted with the announcement of the new Permanent Secretary for the Scottish Office. In him we have a man of rare distinction. I shall be interested to see, when the division takes place, whether this very able civil servant decides to be head of the Scottish Civil Service to do with the Assembly or to be head of the Scottish Civil Service answerable for half of the Departments of agriculture and economic affairs to this small-scale Secretary of State who will be a message boy between Scotland and England. I know that the Minister of State will say that he will not be a message boy and that he will be an important man. I am thinking of what he will become after this

Bill has been in operation for some time. This is a grossly unsatisfactory position.
Why is the Bill seeking this curious sub-division? Why are the Government trying to behave in this way? I think that it is because of the political factors that I have mentioned. It would be much more satisfactory to have a Scottish Office with all the powers of the Secretary of State devolved to the Assembly. Those that are unfit to be devolved should be withdrawn and sent back to Whitehall so that there is a clear distinction between a Scottish Government in Edinburgh responsible to the Scottish Assembly and a United Kingdom Government in London responsible for some Scottish affairs—for industry, possibly, for employment and for social security. But a clear distinction of this kind must exist or the thing will not work.
The Minister of State may urge us to look at the case of Northern Ireland. This is our one clear-cut case. There certain clear-cut powers of the kind that I am asking for were devolved to the then Stormont Government. That system was operated for 50 years. Let us leave aside the political complications which beset Stormont, and think instead of how the system worked as an administrative machine. It is worth noting that on many issues, for administrative not political reasons, the officials and Ministers in Stormont decided to work hand in glove with their Whitehall colleagues. Consider the operation of the Ministry of Agriculture and the whole of agriculture under those legislative and executive powers in the 10 years before the end of the Stormont Government. The officials and Ministers there worked hand in glove with Whitehall simply because Irish farmers wanted the same prices and regulations on health and vaccines, for example, as applied in the United Kingdom.
No doubt in time in the same way United Kingdom Ministries will be working together with European Ministries as harmonisation progresses. But let us consider from within the entire sphere of agriculture those things which were special for Northern Ireland and in which Northern Ireland needed special and suitable treatment. The interesting point is that this margin between those things which were better done uniformly for the United Kingdom and those things better


done specially for Ireland was a fluctuating margin. It is not a margin which can be laid down in an Act as this Act seeks to lay it down. It changes as situations develop.
My plea to the Minister of State is that it is far better administratively, politically and psychologically to devolve a complete function and then leave it to the devolved Assembly to decide to co-operate with the United Kingdom Government on it. This is done in every federation in the world. There is no federation where co-operative federalism as it is now called has not taken root. Even the State of Quebec in its present difficulties is still working with Ottawa in joint schemes because they make sense, but the decision to do so lies with the devolved Assembly and is taken freely and of its own will. To attempt to say beforehand that this or that cannot be done because it is reserved for a curious half or quarter Department sitting in Edinburgh—not in the same building but perhaps across the road, in the same geographical area, and not under one's control—is a recipe for disaster.
I ask the Minister, therefore, to consider altering the form of the Bill, when it comes to another place, in order to accommodate this difficulty.

Mr. Grimond: It seems to me that Parts IV and V are the nub of the Bill, and that it is in relation to Part V that the major danger of confusion arises.
I share the desire of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) that there should be a clear-cut division of powers between the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.
I am told—I have not been able to check it—that Scotland has the highest proportion of its economy under public control of any country in the Western world. On the question of how this is to be controlled the Bill is very obscure. It does not say how the nationalised industries and the innumerable public boards—I believe that already 49 report to the Secretary of State for Scotland—are to fit into this pattern of devolution.
As the hon. Gentleman has already stated, it is inconceivable that the Scottish Assembly would remain silent if the

Scottish economy were, for example, to be undergoing extreme difficulty with industrial trouble. The Assembly would certainly want to debate this and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the head of the Scottish Government would go direct to the Prime Minister in London. The Secretary of State might very well be cut out.
The more we consider the Bill the more obvious it is that a federal structure would be the clearest, cleanest and easiest way of dealing with Home Rule. I do not wish to develop that argument at this stage but merely put it on the record. The more we debate the Bill, the more we see that federalism is what we are driven into. I follow the hon. Gentleman in saying that if we look at the Irish Bills we find that they provided a much cleaner, clearer and shorter form of devolution than we are now embarking upon.
The hon. Gentleman has asked why certain groups are not devolved and others are. I attempted at a previous time to draw up a devolution Bill for Scotland. It is not an easy thing to do. It is not something that can be done between shaving and breakfast. The difficulty is that the functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland have grown up over the years and have not followed any absolutely clear-cut logical process. But there is a lot to be said for the hon. Gentleman's amendment and for taking these functions as a basis.
As to fisheries, for example, in Group 14, as we have to negotiate for fisheries on the world scene, it is probably desirable that this should be done for the United Kingdom as a whole by the Foreign Office. Scotland has certain particular interests in fisheries, and therefore there is a genuine difficulty in drawing up exactly who is to be responsible for fisheries. I do not want it to be thought that I think that the solution is easy, but I believe that something on the lines of the amendment would have been easier than what is proposed in the Bill.
The Bill sets out certain groups and then it begins to enumerate the statutes, saying whether they are to be devolved or not. I would lay a very heavy sum of money on the contention that something has been left out in one way or another, and that in a year or so some confusion will arise as a result. I am not quite certain how that will be put right. If there


is conflict between, say, the Scottish Assembly and the United Kingdom Government, we know how that is to be put right, but I am not clear whether the Government envisage having amendments made to the Act when it is discovered that the balance is not quite right. There may well be confusion arising from certain omissions. There may be matters which should be devolved and have not been, or it may be the other way round. Do the Government envisage amending the Act subsequently for this reason? I think that, if the Bill stays as it is, that is bound to happen. If it has to be amended, there will be very serious confusion between England and Scotland as to the method and means of amendment. I shall be very surprised if the Bill in its present form is found to be anything like complete.
Clause 61 refers to Clause 62, which gives certain overriding powers to British Ministers. Therefore we have a further form of confusion here. It is not even clear, in relation to those matters which are included in the Bill, that they will be exclusively within the power of the Scottish Executive. British Ministers may come in and decide that they wish to operate and legislate on these matters. There again I think there is a real danger of confusion.
I have a certain interest in Private Bills. I understand that if a Private Bill contains matters some of which are devolved and some of which are not, the position is that the Scottish Assembly can deal with the matters which are devolved but cannot deal with those which are not devolved. I should like to be told whether that assumption is right. I should also like to know how the apparatus of Private Bills will be handled. On both sides of the border a great many authorities attach great importance to their Private Bills. I assume that there will be a Private Bill procedure in the Scottish Assembly, but I understand that some Bills may be hybrid, so to speak, in that they may deal with matters some of which are devolved and some of which are not. I understand that the Shetland Bill will be in that position. It will therefore be subject in certain respects to interventions by the Scottish Assembly, and in other respects it will remain under the Secretary of State and the United Kingdom Parliament.
I believe that, if we do not have federalism, we shall be in a very great difficulty about this, and that the only way to get round it is to make the sort of cut that the hon. Gentleman suggests in his amendment, so that at any rate we may start with those matters which are under the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I do not deny that there may be certain matters which will have to be looked at again because further devolution may be required. Like the hon. Gentleman, I think that it will be extremely difficult to run the Scottish Assembly without some powers of taxation. The Assembly will constantly want to do things which will cost money, but it will not get money apart from what has been allocated to it already. This will be a limiting factor, whatever may be its powers on paper. Nevertheless, what is proposed in the amendment would be a useful start. Although it is not ideal, I hope that the Government will consider it very seriously from the point of view of those of us who believe in some form of devolution. I suggest that we should learn from the Irish Bills and the experience of the Secretary of State's office, and try at any rate to operate more along the lines of the amendment.

Mr. Heffer: I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) very interesting indeed. He has done what many other hon. Members have already done in this House. He has again raised the whole basic question of the Bill. I do not know how we can possibly discuss any part of the Bill without doing so.
The right hon. Gentleman's party, of course, supports the Bill, but what it really wants is federalism. The Scottish nationalists support the Bill, but they really want separation. Other hon. Members support the Bill because they do not see any alternative to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), in moving the amendment, said that we do not want to go into these basic issues, but I do not know how we can avoid it. I actually agree with the logic of his argument. It was a most logical proposition that he made. As to what we are being offered at the moment, I will not use my Dad's expression, but it ends up with the words that it is neither one thing nor the other. He had a much


more colourful way of putting it. We are being offered a sort of half-way house, and in politics half-way houses are never satisfactory. They can go on for a period of time but eventually we either go beyond them or we go back. The question, therefore, is what exactly the Secretary of State for Scotland is to do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that three-quarters of the Secretary of State's powers and work will be taken away. Are we to understand that the First Secretary of State will be sitting in the Cabinet—because, if he has not that sort of power or scope, what position will he occupy? Will he be listened to, or will he be a person of no importance?
I believe that the First Secretary whatever he is called—I shudder to think that he will be called Prime Minister—will be an important man and a man to whom the Prime Minister of the British Parliament will have to listen to and consult on matters affecting Scotland. That is logical.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend having said that, is it not implicit that Labour Cabinet members will tell their colleagues precisely what is going on? If a Labour Cabinet can tumble to these matters, but if my hon. Friend's colleagues on the National Executive of the Labour Party have not tumbled to them, is it not about time that they at least woke up to them?

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend refers to my colleagues on the National Executive of the Labour Party. I do not want to say much on that score. I have had a few battles in the past, and I was defeated. I thought that my arguments were right, but my colleagues thought otherwise. I am sure that if those colleagues were here and able to listen to the arguments which are presented, they would be convinced that either one has to go the whole hog and have some form of federal system or leave the position precisely as it is. That is the logic of the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The logic is either that one should go ahead, abolish the Secretary of State and establish a Scottish Assembly as the first step towards separation, or that the situation should remain as it is in respect of the unity of the United Kingdom.

I think that is a most important argument.
I shall neither support this amendment nor oppose it. I wish that we were not even discussing it. In my view, the contribution which these discussions and debates make towards the well-being of the British people and of the future of the British Isles is absolutely nil.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to be called to contribute to this debate because my Amendments Nos. 389 and 390 are being discussed with Amendment No. 540. I am grateful for the acknowledgement by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) that my amendments, though by slightly diffenet means, seek to achieve the same ends as his amendment.
I have sought to amplify my amendment still further by tabling Amendments Nos. 387 and 391 and also a new schedule, Amendment No. 388. Those amendments have not been called with the present group, but I mention them because I believe they follow a reasonably logical course in connection with my other amendments.
I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that in this respect we should have nothing at all, or should move further forward. I have made no secret of the fact that I desire to go rather further towards a federal-type structure for the United Kingdom. That is the motivating force behind my amendments, because I believe that they would help to pave the way towards that federal structure. I accept that they have some demerit and may be simply a half-way house but, as I shall try to argue, it is a half-way house that has a greater stability than the kind of solution put forward by the Government in the Bill.
I emphasise that the purpose of my amendments is the same as that adopted by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, namely, to try to demonstrate that there is an alternative approach to the course chosen by the Government.
There are, broadly, two methods of devolution. One is to specify in detail what is to be devolved, which in general is the Government's approach. The other is the method that I have tried to adopt,


namely, to specify what is being retained to the sovereign Parliament. Obviously, I prefer the latter course. The Government have chosen their method, but it involves a great deal more description of the detail than does the method that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian and I have chosen. However, when functions are divided—the hon. Gentleman mentioned the topic of agriculture—we get into an area of great confusion. I hope that the Committee will approach these amendments on their merits and consider them quite apart from the question whether one favours devolution. We are considering schemes of devolution, and it is important that we should try to obtain the best provisions.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian referred to a meeting which he and I attended and which dealt with agricultural matters. He will remember that at that meeting there were individuals who were in favour of devolution but others who were very much against any form of devolution whatever. The one thing on which they were agreed was that if there was to be a scheme of devolution it was important either that everything was devolved in a particular area, or that everything was retained. Regardless of approach, that was a common factor in the argument.
I believe that the Government's approach tends to be messy, untidy and unclear. I appreciate that they have chosen this method because they wish to treat these functions on their merits, but they are approaching the subject of devolution as a matter of detail rather than as a matter of principle. It is the principle with which we have tried to deal in our amendments.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Does my hon. Friend think that it is possible to devolve matters of agriculture? I appreciate that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) quoted the German example. I do not think that that example is ideal, but it is something which the Germans have to put up with because of the way in which their system works. Does my hon. Friend thinks that it would make sense—I ask him this because of his great knowledge of agriculture—to give these agricultural powers to Scotland

and yet to leave to the United Kingdom the negotiations in Brussels?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, I think that is possible.

Mr. Raison: But is it sensible?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, I think that it is sensible when considering the situation in Europe. I shall deal with the detail in a moment. We could quote the Northern Ireland example in terms of domestic functions, because many functions remain in that Province. One of the successes that we have achieved in Northern Ireland is that the authorities there have been responsible for agricultural matters and they have pioneered work in the eradication of certain diseases and, indeed, are ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. They have set a pattern in that work. However, to come to a more up-to-date example in a European context, I do not think that this Bill takes sufficient account of the changed constitutional position of the United Kingdom as a whole in Europe.
Agriculture is an example, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) for raising it. The economic functions of the agricultural departments are important in the context to which he refers. The agricultural departments of the United Kingdom, whether in England, Wales or Scotland, are merely acting as agents for decisions that are taken in Brussels. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but that is the truth. To a great extent they are acting as agents.
In my amendments foreign policy and policy making on European issues are retained by the sovereign Parliament, by the United Kingdom Assembly. The carrying out of European functions is often done by the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I do not see why a devolved Assembly in Scotland, a Scottish Administration, should not carry out such functions in the same way.

Mr. Raison: It seems that what my hon. Friend is suggesting goes against that which was argued by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, namely, a sort of split in agricultural policy. I do not believe that there can be the separation of the economic function of agriculture. In reality we are nowhere


near the stage when our Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is or will be an agent of Brussels. My hon. Friend will bear in mind what happened in terms of the beef subsidy a year or two back. We were to have the European policy, but our farmers kicked against it and we came up with a scheme of our own. That sort of thing will happen the whole time, even though that is not what the Common Market wants. That will be the reality of the situation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not want to be diverted into a debate on agriculture. However, agriculture is a good example of the way in which we should deal with these functions. It is the way in which certain functions are dealt with that I am seeking to discuss. In the operation of the German example all the negotiations are carried on by the Federal Minister of Agriculture in Brussels. As the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said, the decisions are implemented by the different Länder.
It may well be said that we are moving into a completely new constitutional system. That is why I am disappointed that the European element is not more discussed as we deal with these matters. The German Government have developed their machinery since the European Community was set up whereby the Länder are brought into discussions with the Federal Parliament on the policy decisions that are taken in Brussels. It has been said that we are liable to difficulty as particular countries try to follow up particular policies within the EEC policy—for example, the introduction of the beef premium, which was tried first in this country. Given the solution that I am suggesting, I do not understand why that should be any hindrance to the innovation of and variation in policy that we now see developing.

Mr. Nick Budgen: This is all possible within a clearly defined federal structure such as that which exists in Germany—

Mr. Mackintosh: There is the Northern Ireland situation.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman intervenes by referring to the Northern Ireland situation. The right hon. Member

for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has dealt with that argument many times. To return to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), is it not the position that until we have a clearly defined federal structure we cannot deal with these matters in the manner that he suggests?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If I am not careful, I shall fall into the same trap as that into which the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian fell yesterday, namely, taking up many interventions and entering into general debate, thereby losing sight of the amendment. However, I shall answer directly the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I do not think that it is unfair to draw the comparison with Northern Ireland. We applied to join the Community and at the same time we still had a Stormont Parliament and a domestic administration in Northern Ireland. I was involved in the negotiations on agriculture with the EEC. I cannot remember any occasion throughout the discussions with the Northern Ireland Office, or with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland administration, when any problem arose in respect of their acting on European policy. Direct rule has come only since we entered the Community. I do not think that the Northern Ireland comparison or illustration in any way weakens my argument. I accept that my hon. Friend has a point on the basis of the Government's Bill. There is the unsatisfactory element involved in the question how all these provisions fit into the wider constitutional structure of the United Kingdom and Europe.
I return to the point that I made at the beginning of my remarks. We are trying to suggest a way in which a devolved structure may be set up for Scotland. I believe that the content of my amendments make more sense for the reasons that I have mentioned, and would, if accepted, develop into a more stable situation that would take better account of the United Kingdom as a whole, and of our relationship with Europe.
To take up the main theme of my amendments, I believe that what they propose has certain advantages. First, that


which is proposed in the amendments has precedent. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian has already referred to that precedent and I do not want to refer to it again in detail. Is is the fact that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 is based on the very much more simple premise of specifying what is retained and devolving everything else. In the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, on which my amendments are specifically modelled—especially the new schedule—we are shown that even in the United Kingdom legislative context there is precedent for the proposal that is contained in my amendments. For that reason I hope that the amendment now before the Committee will commend itself to the Government.
Secondly, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said, I believe that what we are proposing in the amendments is very much more clear-cut than the provisions and the schedules in the Bill that deal with the division of powers.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian mentioned agriculture. Another dimension is fisheries. This is where we have the unclear distinction. On the one hand, a fish in the sea comes under the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. On the other hand, a fresh water fish comes under the responsibility of the Scottish Assembly. Unfortunately, some fish happen to move from fresh water to sea water. That is an illustration of the confusion and overlapping that will be created under the approach taken by the Government.
The third reason for my supporting this group of amendments is of importance and has been touched upon already in interventions. As the hon. Member for Walton said, I feel that that which the Government are proposing is, to some extent, a halfway house. Of course, constitutional changes may always be considered, to some extent, in that context. If democracy is to be meaningful and is to remain real, it will always evolve. If it does not change, democracy is failing. I believe that the amendments are based on more clear-cut principles than those that the Government put forward in the Bill.
The eventual solution for which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland

(Mr. Grimond) looks, and for which I have some sympathy, is of a federal nature. The amendments contain some of the elements of such a solution. They propose a structure that is much more likely to be stable. If there are to be subsequent changes, it is likely that we shall evolve a better constitutional solution for Scotland and for other parts of the United Kingdom.
One of the weaknesses of the Government's proposals is exemplified when we contrast the Scotland Bill with the Wales Bill. They are proposing one-off solutions for different parts of the United Kingdom; a one-off solution for Scotland, a one-off solution for Wales and still no solution for Northern Ireland or for England, the biggest partner in the United Kingdom.
I believe that the approach embodied in the amendments, which is of a federal nature, should commend itself for its own sake and because these principles can be applied equally, not only to Scotland but to other areas of the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Small: I know that I have a quaint way of expressing myself on occasions, and probably it will happen again today in terms of devolved power and the status quo.
If one looks at Ireland as a philosopher, what does one find? It was created because one party would not commit political bigamy. That was the difference between the two camps, and we got the result in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. We tried to resolve the problem recently in the Convention, by proportional representation and in other ways. We introduced a kind of political Esperanto—a common language. We still have not solved the problem of Ireland.
What do we have now in terms of the Scottish end of the business? If I quote my poetry right, there used to be the story of the
one-eyed yellow idol to the north of Khatmandu.
To that extent, it is a broken-hearted woman who attends the grave of Mad Carew.
I cannot support the Bill in its present form. The 1707 Act has stood the test of time and weathered the storms. I cannot


find my soul drifting in the direction of the Bill.

Mr. Leon Brittan: It may be convenient to intervene at a comparatively early stage in the debate on this important matter. The distribution of powers between Westminster and the devolved institution is absolutely central to the whole of the Scotland Bill.
I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that it is not possible to consider particular aspects of the Bill—finance yesterday or the distribution of powers between Westminster and the devolved institution today—without looking at the whole structure, purpose and philosophy in forming the Bill.
Previous debates—yesterday's as much as any other—showed that, in the view of many right hon. and hon. Members, the measure as a whole is shoddily conceived and is a short-sighted answer to the problems, based on a narrow political view.
This group of amendments and the consideration of the division between the powers reserved to Westminster and those granted to the devolved institution shows that the Bill manifests another defect, related to the first. It is pitifully hesitant and miserably two-faced. It is pitifully hesitant, on the one hand, because it purports to grant to the devolved institution a wide measure of power which will enable it to govern Scotland in a meaningful way. On the other hand, it is two-faced because it gives with one hand and takes away with the other. It is for that reason that, when we look at the provisions relating to the distribution of powers between the devolved institution and Westminster, we find the characteristics of a local government Act rather than a constitutional measure.
Instead of a broad-based generous grant of powers on a limited or large number of subjects, as the case may be, or the reservation of a limited number of powers, we find the messy contrivance of a detailed catalogue of powers, some devolved and others partially devolved, and non-devolved powers, some of which are none the less partially devolved. In addition, there are certain overriding

reserve powers just in case the position was not complicated enough.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the adjectival part of his speech—he has described the Government's proposals on devolution as hesitant—what adjective does he think would be proper for the Conservative Party's policy on devolution?

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Cautious.

Mr. Brittan: "Cautious" was the adjective used by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). It is understandable that whenever the Minister of State reaches a difficult patch he turns to the "Let us attack the Tories" line. It is an understandable Government tactic. It is the ministerial equivalent of the famous annotation in the speaker's notes "Weak points, shout." Whenever the Government get into that situation, they attack our proposals.
These are serious matters, because there is a real alternative in our approach. I hope that the Minister of State has now had his little fling in this debate. Of course, he is welcome to return to it as often as he likes, but it does not further his cause.
It is not exactly a great secret that the Conservative Party is not in favour of the transfer of massive legislative powers to a Scottish Assembly and the creation of a separate Scottish Cabinet and Government for Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman and many Labour Members who have already spoken are anxious that we should consider the Government's scheme, I should point out that, if the transfer of a substantial amount of power is to take place, certain essential criteria have to be met: first, that the powers to be transferred should be clear in expression; secondly, that the transfer of powers should be generous in conception; and, thirdly, that they should avoid ambiguity and conflict to the maximum possible extent. I think that those are fair criteria to apply to the distribution of powers.
The Government's scheme does not meet those criteria. There are no clear criteria for the division of functions. They are arbitrary. It is reasonable to say that, as a possibility, we envisage some kind of Home Rule for Scotland and that what


is left to the United Kingdom Government and Parliament will be defined in terms of what is necessary for retaining the unity of the United Kingdom. But that has not been done. It is not a measure of Home Rule of that kind.
For example, there may be a powerful argument for not devolving the universities, and I would support it. But, at the same time, if we envisage Home Rule for Scotland with reserve powers for the United Kingdom Government to retain the unity of the United Kingdom, there is no reason for not devolving the universities.
I should like to illustrate how the detailed splitting up of powers goes to the smallest minutiae. There is no reason why, on anything approaching that generous basis of devolution, there should not be devolution of career guidance. It is difficult to see why it is necessary for the United Kingdom Government to retain career guidance to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom. That sort of basis of devolution has not been chosen.
6.0 p.m.
An alternative basis, which found favour with the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), is that of devolving the essential powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland as exercised in executive matters, and areas that he would cover in introducing legislation to this House. That also has some attractions, but it is not the approach followed here.
The third possibility would be to say that we should set out a list in fairly general terms of reserve powers or devolved powers. That approach was adopted in the Government of Ireland Act and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. The distinction between them has often been made by the Minister of State, but in this respect there is no distinction to be drawn.
There are real advantages in adopting that kind of approach. It meets the criteria of being generous in conception, and it involves far less conflict and ambiguity than otherwise would be the case. Ambiguity can arise in two senses. It can arise because there is no particular reason why one power should be devolved while another is retained. In that sense it is a logical ambiguity. Secondly, in any

legal instrument setting out powers, there are ambiguities of interpretation at the margins, and for that reason it is necessary to have an element of judicial review for legislation, whether it is pre-Assent or post-Assent.
It is quite clear that the larger the number of categories set out in the context of this Bill the more the opportunities for demarcation disputes and disagreements on the question whether there is devolved power being operated and on the question whether the Assembly has acted intra vires or ultra vires. By insisting on setting out detailed categories of powers, derogation from powers, legislation that can be amended or repealed by the Scottish Assembly, legislation that can be partially amended by the Assembly and legislation which cannot be amended by it, plainly we increase greatly the opportunity for dispute and argument at the margin.
In addition, apart from the lack of generosity, the lack of clarity, the increase in ambiguity and the conflict involved, there is the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland. This matter was raised by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, who, unhappily, is unable to be with us at this stage of the debate. There is great force in the point the hon. Member made that the position of the Secretary of State does become, under this scheme, very much weakened and very uncertain. He will be, in principle, little more than a messenger boy or at best a listening post with limited powers. It is very difficult to refute seriously the suggestion that the person having the title of Prime Minister of Scotland will be the one who makes representations to the United Kingdom Government. That must be a defect in the system and in the distribution of powers.
Then there is the role of the House of Commons. Here we have a hybrid and complex situation offending against the criteria which should be applied when we consider the distribution of powers—

Mr. Raison: May I take my hon. Friend back to the question of the Secretary of State for Scotland and his position if this ridiculous Bill goes through? It is essential that there should be a senior Minister designated to hold responsibility for what goes on in Scotland. In Stormont it was the Home Secretary who had a kind of responsibility


for Northern Ireland. That responsibility was inadequately exercised, but nevertheless it would be disastrous to get into a situation in which the House of Commons was unable to express anxieties and doubts for something for which, at the end of the day, we are completely and utterly responsible.

Mr. Brittan: I agree entirely. That is why I am opposed to the present concept of the Bill. Any suggestion that the continuance of the office of Secretary of State provides protection seems rather illusory. It might be unsatisfactory to transfer residual responibility to the Home Secretary, but it is even more unsatisfactory to pretend that the responsibility rests in the weakened hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will seem a pitiful and minor figure compared with the Prime Minister of Scotland. I agree entirely about the need for such a relationship to exist, and that the scheme that we have in the Bill does not provide it. For this reason, and many others it is an objectionable Bill. The effect of this distribution of powers on the House of Commons is to provide four separate sorts of situation, according to the subject matter.
There may be matters in respect of which the position is exactly the same in Scotland as it is in England and Wales—the position in which responsibility is exercised solely by United Kingdom Ministers, legislation is passed here and we are in total control. Secondly, there may be a situation in which legislation is passed in this House but is looked after by the Secretary of State for Scotland within the United Kingdom Cabinet. The third situation is one in which the United Kingdom Parliament retains responsibility for legislation in a particular area, but its administration is in the hands of the Scottish Executive. The fourth situation is one in which both the legislation and its administration are in the hands of the Scottish devolved institutions.
This illustrates the fact that the Bill is complex and cumbersome, and it does not distribute the powers between Westminster and the devolved institutions on a rational or administratively workable basis. It does not distribute them on a basis that has political advantages of generosity or clarity of conception, or on one that avoids conflict. It is not

surprising that this is so, because the Bill was conceived not as a constitutional instrument but rather as a matter of "How far must we go?" and "How far dare we not go?". On the basis of compromise of that kind we are expected to go as far as is irresistibly possible and at that point the devolution of powers stops. We are expected to go to the point where insistence is overwhelming, and at that point the retention of powers stops. It is essentially short-sighted and, therefore, unstable and unworkable balance, which is not based on any constitutionally sound principles of the devolution of powers.
Aside from jesting with the Minister of State, which is always enjoyable, I have made it quite clear that we are not in favour of executive and legislative devolution of that kind. But if one is to proceed along those lines, the approach of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian is preferable. The approach of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns is even more preferable. At least it would provide a logically coherent, politically workable and constitutionally respectable basis for advancing, rather than the botched-up solution put forward by the Government.

Mr. David Price: On a point of order, Sir Myer. The Committee is in some difficulty, since the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) moved this amendment but was not here for any of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). I am one of the more senior hon. Members in the Chamber, and I have always thought that an hon. Member who is lucky enough to have his amendment called should be here to listen to the debate. The Minister is about to reply and the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian is not here. As we are under a guillotine and the Chair has had difficulty in selecting some amendments, is it not good manners to the Chair and for the convenience of the House and the Front Bench spokesmen that an hon. Member who moves an amendment should stay to listen to the debate? Otherwise, what is the point of debating amendments?

The First Deputy Chairman: It would be a welcome power for the Chair to be able to say that the sitting should be


suspended until an hon. Member who moved an amendment has returned to listen to the debate. Unfortunately, I do not have that power. It is customary for an hon. Member to remain, but there may be a good reason, which we shall learn about later, for the absence of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh).

Mr. John Stokes: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. As you are about to call the Minister, does that mean that this will be the last speech or will other hon. Members who wish to intervene have the chance to do so?

The First Deputy Chairman: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to take part in the debate, he has until 11 o'clock tonight to do so—though I hope we shall not still be on this amendment by then.

Mr. John Smith: I think that it would be convenient if I intervened to set out the Government case in response to the amendment. I note that a number of hon. Members still wish to speak. That is their privilege, but the more time that is taken on a general discussion of a clause, the less time there will be for the groups of amendments. We have three days in which to debate this clause and Schedule 10, and I hope that it will be possible for us not to spend an excessively long time on the general principles before moving on to some of the important matters that arise in the groups of amendments to Schedule 10.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has just returned to the Chamber. He is here on time. I should like to deal immediately with some of the points that he raised. He takes a different approach to devolution and says that it is simpler than what we have provided for. He says that all we need to do is to devolve the functions, duties and obligations of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office. Since the hon. Gentleman is a constitutional historian of distinction, he will know that the Scottish Office has not acquired powers over the years according to some grand design. Every United Kingdom Administration has added stones to the cairn of the Scot-tish Office. Nearly every Administration

has devolved, in an administrative sense, functions to the Scottish Office. This Administration devolved responsibility for regional development grants. This is a characteristic of Conservative as well as Labour Governments.
6.15 p.m.
I do not think that anyone would claim that the way that powers have been devolved within the concept of a single legislature and single Cabinet responsibility for them should necessarily be a guide to what should be the legislative competence of the Assembly.
I was grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend centred on the main points of the amendment. If we followed his approach, we would transfer to the Assembly some areas of activity that are not within the Bill, principally agriculture, regional industrial policy, police and electricity. There are other matters such as civil defence—

Mr. Mackintosh: Should the Minister not add fisheries to his list?

Mr. Smith: I was going to develop that point later. At present we have devolved only salmon and fresh water fishing. My hon. Friend is correct; fishing would be one of the major areas to be devolved, but I had taken agricultural to include fisheries. These would be major additions to the devolved capacity of the Assembly.
The Government took the view, for which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has criticised us, that it would be wrong in principle to devolve these matters. On the question of agriculture, a great deal of agricultural policy is subject to regulations, directives and policy formulated in the EEC. As a result, the opportunity for the Scottish Assembly to reach a policy vastly different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom would be limited. The opportunity to follow a distinct Scottish policy related to the circumstances of Scottish agriculture would be limited narrowly.
It seemed important for us to take into account the fact that we have a common market in agriculture in this country. For example, a great deal of agricultural produce is grown in Scotland and a great deal of livestock is reared there. When talking about public expenditure per head,


some hon. Members should remember that, in terms of agricultural support, the high figure which appears for agricultural interests in Scotland can hardly be regarded as an exclusively Scottish benefit because of the value which accrues to the United Kingdom as a whole. Beasts that graze on the hills of Scotland are often eaten by people in England. However, I must not digress into that area.
This country has a common market in agriculture, and in light of that and the influence of the EEC there would not be a great deal of scope for devolving agriculture. In addition, there would be complications arising from the fact that the EEC, which has an almost predominant influence in the development of agriculture policy, can deal only with sovereign States. Only the United Kingdom could be represented in the Council of Ministers. This has been a difficulty for the West German Government in dealing with areas that are the responsibility of the Lñnder. They have to deal with the areas of the common market in Germany before the Blind Minister goes to the EEC. If we devolved agriculture, the Minister of Agriculture would be representing the Scottish Assembly's interests when matters were discussed in the EEC. He might take with him a representative from the Scottish Administration, but that would be on a grace and favour basis rather than because the Scottish Administration had a right to be represented.
These are genuinely complicating factors. They seem to indicate that it was better to retain agriculture as a responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. It will be administratively decentralised, in the sense that the Secretary of State for Scotland will continue to be the Minister of Agriculture for Scotland and will take up the interests of the Scottish agriculture and fisheries industries. Indeed, a lead has been taken by the Secretary of State in some discussions on fishery matters within the Council of Ministers. He has reported to the House and has been acting on behalf of the United Kingdom fishing industry. This is a matter in which Scottish interests are important.

Mr. Rifkind: I can see the force of the Minister's argument, but surely there will be something absurd about a future Secretary of State for Scotland being responsible

for the four unrelated topics of agriculture, industrial development, electricity and the police. If, as the Minister has demonstrated, it is not appropriate that these should be devolved matters, is there not an overwhelming case for them to be put back into United Kingdom Ministries, albeit with a Scottish identity on matters relating to Scotland?

Mr. Smith: I am not trying to dodge that question. I shall deal with the position of the Secretary of State later. I wish to follow a logical pattern in my argument.

Mr. Mackintosh: I apologise for my repeated interventions. I had to leave the Chamber to meet a deputation of fishermen from my constituency. They asked whether we could table an amendment to provide that fisheries should be devolved and made the responsibility of the Scottish Assembly. The United Kingdom Government could still put their case, as the Minister of Agriculture does at present, but they want fisheries to be devolved and put under the control of the Assembly.

Mr. Smith: One point that my hon. Friend might make courteously to his constituents is that on fisheries the Scottish Assembly might have a different policy from that of the United Kingdom Government. Would the Minister have to put forward two cases to the Council of Ministers—the Assembly case and the English case? This is a genuine difficulty. I should be very glad to know what my hon. Friend's fishing constituents think about it, and how they would see the resolution of the problem.
It seemed to us to be a serious difficulty, and one which cannot blandly be swept aside, for the very reason of the importance of the Common Market in agricultural policy and, indeed, in fisheries policy because of the importance of the CFP and the influence that it has on the development of our national fishing policy.
The other matter touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian was regional industrial policy. It would be extremely difficult to devolve regional industrial policy if it involved the giving of grants on a higher or a lower scale or on a different basis to industry in Scotland than those given in,


for example, the North-West. It seems to us entirely desirable that there ought to be decentralisation of administration of applications for grants, as there has been under the Scottish Economic and Planning Department. That has been a great improvement. I say this as a constituency Member. The way in which grants have been dealt with by the Scottish Economic and Planning Department has been a distinct improvement on the previous treatment by the Department of Industry, because we have local officials dealing with local problems and knowing local companies, and they can assess applications for grants in a better way.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) shakes his head. I know that he is opposed to the whole concept of regional policy. He is Southern Man and is not much interested in regional policy. I do not know whether he has ever gone to the Scottish Economic and Planning Department with an application for a grant.

Mr. Raison: I am not quite sure what that somewhat gratuitous attack on me was in aid of, but it would not seem difficult for the Department of Industry to have civil servants in Edinburgh. I do not think that this is relevant to the discussion, but as the Minister has attacked me perhaps I may make the point that one can perfectly well devolve administration in the economic field, as in others?

Mr. Smith: The importance is that there are local officials and it is a Scottish Minister who will get the matters that come up for decision and who has a knowledge of the local situation.
The main point is that it would be difficult to maintain a cohesive integrated economy and to be fair to all parts of the United Kingdom if we gave responsibility for regional industrial policy to the Assembly, because we could get wide variations in, perhaps, the level of grants, and that would cause great dissatisfactions if it was palpably unfair to the English regions as a way of dealing with the matter.
That is the logic behind our decision not to devolve regional industrial policy to the Assembly and, indeed, the rationale of having guidelines for the Scottish Development Agency, which the Conservative

Party was foolish enough to vote against. Fortunately, the Conservatives were unsuccessful in seeking to delete from the Bill those guidelines, which are protection for United Kingdom interests.
Similarly with the police; this is a matter that bears on the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. The same principle applies to prosecutions as applies to the police. We felt that responsibility for law and order and for enforcing the law relating to security must remain with the United Kingdom Government, because it affects laws passed not only by the Scottish Assembly but by the United Kingdom Parliament.
For reasons of almost historical accident, electricity is a matter that is dealt with by the Scottish Office, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is the electricity Minister although he is not the gas Minister or the oil Minister. Since we believe in a common energy policy for the whole of the United Kingdom, we thought that it made sense not to devolve that.
If we adopt the apparently simple approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, these would all be devolved. It is not just a matter of saying that this would be simple, or let us take some of them back. I think that my hon. Friend would accept that if all these matters were devolved, they would all have to be taken back. That would mean that we were centralising again and taking back to London decisions which could perfectly well be made in Edinburgh, Glasgow and other parts of Scotland. That does not seem to make a great deal of sense.
This turns on the question of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) says that the Secretary of State will be responsible for a miscellaneous number of things. I would describe his role after devolution as primarily Scotland's economic Minister. He will be the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and will have all the economic responsibilities that the Scottish Office has, and would have law and order functions as well.
Certainly there is a certain disparateness about these things, but the very essence of a territorial Secretary of State


is that his responsibilities are disparate. I may as well reply to the hon. Member for Pentlands by saying that I think that the equivalent of nine United Kingdom Departments for which the Secretary of State is responsible is a pretty disparate collection. The hon. Gentleman knows that the difficulty that Secretaries of State for Scotland have had is the tremendous wide range of responsibility that they have had. One of the important cases for devolution is to shed responsibility from the sort of one-man government that we tend to get in Scotland. If the Secretary of State is not dealing with teachers on Monday, farmers on Tuesday, trade unions on Wednesday, and local government on Thursday, he is off to Brussels on a Friday and no doubt dealing with someone else with a miscellaneous set of complaints on Saturday.
It is an appalling burden that is placed upon the Secretary of State for Scotland. If we do not follow the process of legislative devolution and carry on with administrative devolution we shall heap more and more responsibility on the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is also dealing with employment and training functions under the new employment agencies. The task gets greater and greater. Lifting some of these burdens and giving the Secretary of State responsibility for those matters that are not devolved legislatively but which are administratively devolved makes a great deal of sense.
There is a very important role for the Secretary of State in concentrating on these matters, and being able to concentrate on these decentralised matters, which will lead to good Government. There is plenty of responsibility there for a Minister to exercise. The present trouble is that Secretaries of State of all parties have had far too much to do.

Mr. Rifkind: If the Minister's objective—which is very reasonable—is to simplify matters, how does he justify that in regard to agriculture and industry? Whereas responsibility is now split up between the Scottish Office and the Department of Industry, in future it will be split three ways, part with the devolved Administration, part with the Scottish Office and part with the United Kingdom Department. That does not seem to be an improvement, by any set of criteria.

Mr. Smith: We are dealing with the administrative matters relating to the Scottish Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian wants to transfer the responsibility that the Scottish Office has for them. There will be some other responsibilities transferred to the devolved legislature which are not the responsibility of the Scottish Office, which we shall be dealing with later. However, for the purposes of this argument, I am concentrating on what has been put forward in the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian says that devolution would be far simpler, since we already have devolved administration, and since we have already decided that it should be devolved administrably to the Secretary of State, why not hand over the whole caboodle?
Is that the proper approach? One ought to ask whether matters should be devolved on their merits, and not whether historically they have been decentralised. I am trying to put the case for saying that those matters which would be encompassed by devolution if the amendment were favoured should not be devolved.
The other matter we are considering is the argument put forward by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns and adopted, in part, I think, by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby compained about demarcation disputes. It is probably quite easy for a Conservative Front Bench spokesman—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for referring just briefly to Conservative policy on this matter—to make remarks about demarcation problems. If we have no devolution, we shall have no demarcation problems. That seems to me to be the policy of the Conservative Party. I understand that in Glasgow the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition described herself as a passionately committed devolutionist at heart. It is obviously not to this sort of devolution. I wonder what sort of devolution it is.

Mr. Pym: A commitment to principle.

Mr. Smith: I do not think that it is what is commonly understood by a commitment in principle to devolution. I


shall not bother the Committee by investigating the right hon. Lady's thoughts too far.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby is happiest when he is attacking the structure of the Bill. He is quite entitled to do that. But the difference between his approach and that of the hon Member for North Angus and Mearns is that the latter put down an alternative and was prepared to justify it, and the Conservative Front Bench does not put down an alternative but merely criticises what is in the Bill.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: The Minister seems constantly to be mystified by this. We have said again and again that we do not favour this structure of devolution and this type of Bill. It is, therefore, absurd to expect us to produce something out of a Bill which is conceived by the Government in a mould which is unacceptable to us. Our duty is to say that if we are to go along this road, there are particular problems on particular aspects along that road, and that these alternatives on that road seem to be preferable. The Minister would perform a better service to the House if he dealt with the arguments on the merits of the alternative ways of achieving what he wants but what I do not want.

Mr. Smith: I am doing that. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns offered an alternative. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby favoured it. We do not have a Conservative Front Bench alternative but we do have an interesting alternative from the Opposition Back Benches.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns says that we should take a list of matters which were in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and put them into this Bill, but there is a difficulty in that. If we accepted the amendment, many matters that we do not propose to devolve would be included—for example, energy. I am sure that the hon. Member would be prepared to amend his suggestion to ensure that energy is retained, but that is one of the difficulties of extracting something from another Bill.
It has been said that it would be easier if we reserved the matters for which the

United Kingdom will be responsible instead of specifying the matters to be transferred. One has to decide what one is to reserve and what one is to devolve. It is a choice of presentation and technique, whether one does that by specifying that which is to be devolved or that which is to be reserved. If one specifies what is to be retained for the United Kingdom Parliament, should something be omitted that matter would be devolved automatically. It is better to specify that which is to be devolved so that matters which are not specified are retained as a responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament and then to transfer to the Assembly any other matters which are thought necessary.
I believe that we have come near to defining precisely what is to be devolved, although I agree that that might be thought to be impossible. I do not claim that everything in the Bill is perfect. There may well be mistakes in it, but it is better to make clear what is to be devolved.
If we put in the Bill all those matters that are to be retained, it would create an immensely wide proposition. That would be the consequence of trying to interpret the Act if all it contained were a general provision for peace, order and good government. In the Canadian case this proposition was construed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be extremely wide. We have chosen to specify that which is devolved for a number of reasons.
We have decided that it is better to concentrate on the positive and focus on what is to be devolved. That makes it easier for those who read the Bill to gain an understanding of it. It gives a degree of shape to what is devolved. It is better to do that than to cause people to guess what has not been retained. This method permits greater accuracy. A matter either falls within the devolved sphere or it does not. A person reading the Bill does not have to check whether a matter is included in a long list of reserves. This is also important for the Scottish Assembly and Executive. They will be clear about what they can do and what they cannot do.
Hon. Members have referred to the number of statutes which are mentioned in the Bill. They have asked, for


example, why we have a long list of statutes which explain that Section 1 of an Act is devolved and Section 3 is not. A great deal of work has gone into specifying the details. It is the essence of precision and accuracy. If we had not done that it would be hard for anyone to decide which parts of a statute are involved and which are not. They would ask whether Section 1 of an Act is devolved or not. If we had not gone into that complication in the Bill, I would be accused of being imprecise.

Mr. Mackintosh: I recognise that if the system is to last for a number of years it will, like every system involving a subordinate and superior body, be flexible and moveable. It is the delimitation that will cause trouble. The Minister's precision worries me.

Mr. Smith: I do not follow that argument. One of the important things that the Administration will have to know is whether it has the capacity to deal with a certain matter. If there is doubt, the Assembly will not be clear. That will lead to a great deal of official confusion. It is better that Parliament knows precisely what powers it grants to the Assembly.
If we adopted another approach I would be deluged with complaints because of the lack of clarity. I take the point that there will be a flexible relationship between Parliament and the Assembly. But the Assembly must be certain what it can and cannot do. If the United Kingdom Parliament chooses to legislate later, let it make clear what it is doing. That is the virtue of having this precision and accuracy in the Bill. It is imposible to achieve that accuracy by a list of reserve matters and leaving that which is devolved to implication. We do not want confusion. We want clarity above all else.

Mr. Dalyell: I am entirely on my hon. Friend's side of the argument on the question of the need for clarity. I believe that the Minister has received a submission from Mr. Pritchard of the Law Society of Scotland saying that the legal profession is worried about this. Can he indicate his response to that submission?

Mr. Smith: I have received representations from a number of legal bodies

on this matter. I have replied to the Law Society of Scotland but I disagree with its view. Much of its approach is mistaken and I have said so in my letter. I do not agree with its approach. Its memorandum confuses the vires and override provisions, which surprises me, since it comes from a legal body.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the Minister agree that precedence is also important? Did the Government of Ireland Act lead to difficulties which has led the Minister to decide upon a different approach?

Mr. Smith: It is difficult to make close comparisons with that Act. The involvement of Government was different in 1920. Even the statute book looked different then. As the hon. Member knows, the Government of Ireland Act involved not only a British-Irish dimension but a North-South dimension. Only part of the Act was activated. In 1920 social welfare and social security were not the matters that they are today. As a concept energy was not the matter that it is now. A whole range of Government responsibility has changed.
There is the question whether it would have been wise to follow the approach of that Act or to follow an approach roughly similar to that of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which was hastily put together and hastily considered by the House. The consideration of that measure makes the treatment of this Bill look like a long, leisurely stroll. We bashed that measure, of great constitutional importance, through the House in two or three days. I do not know whether that is a precedent that we should follow, but I am arguing that we have a better approach here. I believe that it gives greater protection to the interests to be reserved. It precludes the possibility of devolution by accident, by failure to identify a statute or subject in a particular part of the Bill. The Committee must be clear what it is devolving and know precisely what it is. Therefore, this approach is better.

Mr. Brittan: With respect, I do not think that the Minister has answered the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). Although it may be true that in 1920 government was much simpler and all sorts of matters did not


arise, is it not right that as long as there was a devolved administration operating in Northern Ireland it operated under the broader distribution of powers, and that that continued into modern times? My hon. Friend was asking whether there were defects arising from that method of division of powers which led the Government to adopt a different approach. If there were, what were those defects? If there were no defects, is not that a powerful argument for retaining that approach in dealing with devolution in Scotland?

Mr. Smith: It would be a powerful argument if that approach were intrinsically better. We wondered whether we should specify reserved or devolved powers, and came to the conclusion that the latter approach was better. It seems to me that that is the right way. Without doing further research, I cannot identify whether the Government of Ireland Act 1920 approach led to difficulties. But we must bear in mind that in Northern Ireland we were not dealing with a normal political situation. There was one political party in power in Northern Ireland almost constantly over that period, and what might be called normal political divisions and exchanges did not occur. That is a great pity, because for a pilot scheme for devolution it would have been much more useful to have the sort of political divisions and considerations which apply in the United Kingdom rather than the undeveloped situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Brittan: If what the Minister is saying is correct, it is fantastic that in considering which of two approaches to adopt towards the distribution of powers the Government did not consider the lesson to be learnt from our own homegrown experiment in devolution in Northern Ireland, and that the hon. Gentleman needs more research to see whether that led to disadvantages.

Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman is to be so aggressive, he must be careful not to misinterpret me. I said that we had considered the two methods and came to the conclusion that to specify the devolved matters was intrinsically better. Without further research I cannot give specific examples in the 1920 Act. I have indicated generally that there were other considerations

in different circumstances that led to its being formulated in the way that it was. I do not think that it is such a valuable precedent as the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns suggested. We must decide which is the better way in principle and practice, and it seems to me that the way in which we have drafted the Bill is better.
In view of the complexity of a great deal of modern legislation, it is not easy to say with a sweep of the hand "We shall in principle devolve responsibility for such and such an area". We have to fence it in by showing clearly the range and limitation to avoid confusion after the Assembly came into operation.
I hope that I have given some guidance to the Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian for raising the whole question and I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns. Their speeches were models of lucidity and compression, and I thank them for the way in which they developed their arguments. But I do not think that their amendments merit adoption.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. David Price: The Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) for raising the whole question of the residual powers remaining to the Secretary of State for Scotland. We are also grateful to the Minister for his account of how he saw them working.
Has not the Minister omitted one important element in the continuing rôle of the Secretary of State under the arrangements in the Bill? That element is that he will be the spokesman in the Cabinet not only for his remaining Department, but, more importantly, for all the financial claims of the Assembly and Executive, because in the parts of the Bill that we have already disposed of we have added no taxing powers to the Assembly or Executive.
We have heard talk of the Lônder in Germany, and so on. They have some taxing powers, limited, it is true. That is a big difference. The Minister spoke about the Province of Quebec, but that has considerable taxing powers. If I am wrong, I shall gladly give way to the Minister.
This matter raises the issue that has bothered me throughout and continues to bother me. We are now considering what matters should be devolved and whether they should be specified. I have much sympathy with the Government's belief that they should be spelt out, as they are in general terms, rather than that there should be reserved powers retained at the centre.
I like the Minister's approach, but the whole argument is irrelevant as long as there is no devolution of taxation and supply powers. This remains the key to the whole matter. The Minister talked about industry. We have been talking about regional policy, but that involves a spending of public money provided from the centre for the whole of the kingdom. If Scotland were to have its own rights in these matters, it should logically have the right to raise taxes, if it wants to spend more. To do it in vacuo is totally illogical.
I return to the principle well laid down by Sir Frank Layfield and his colleagues in their report on local government finance:
Whoever is responsible for spending money should also be responsible for raising it, so that the amount of expenditure is subject to democratic control.
Under the arrangements proposed by the Government, which have not been altered in the least during the passage of the Bill, we have the seeds of permanent conflict between the Scottish Executive and Assembly on the one hand and the central United Kingdom Government and, by implication, this House on the other hand. The Secretary of State's main job will be as a go-between between those two conflicting pressures. That was a view very well explained by Professor Tom Wilson in an article over a year ago in The Three Banks Review. He said:
the divorce of taxation from expenditure may be fundamentally bad in that it does not encourage a sufficiently responsible attitude towards expenditure.
That must remain our key concern as long as the Government are not prepared to give devolved taxing powers.
That is a basic difference between the Government's approach to devolution and the classic Gladstonian approach to home rule for Ireland, which I quoted on Second Reading and to which I return as the model for how we should

approach these matters. We remain with a situation that is bound to lead to aggro between Edinburgh and Westminster. It cannot be otherwise.
Later this evening we shall go through Schedule 10 and discuss whether this or that power should be devolved. It will be an irrelevant discussion unless we deal with the problem of taxing powers. I hope that the Minister will agree with me on this. It is no good going ahead with a devolution that is technically unsound, because the basic problem in running a democratic society is how to bring together those responsible for expenditure with those responsible for raising taxation.
As the Government are refusing to do that, however, the poor old Secretary of State for Scotland—I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister's comments about the burdens of that great office—will be in an even worse position than he has been hitherto. I have the greatest sympathy for anyone who accepts that office. The Secretary is going to be the butt in between in the continual argument between the Scottish Executive and Assembly and the Treasury here for the United Kingdom. At best he will be the go-between.
There is much logic in saying that if powers are to be retained it is better that they should go to United Kingdom Ministries and that then we should abolish completely the office of Secretary of State for Scotland. I put it to the Committee that unless and until taxing powers are devolved to the Executive and Assembly, someone like the Secretary of State will continue to be needed, and it is because such an office is needed that, attracted as I am to the logic of the amendment, I find it difficult to accept it. I believe that this is the way in which we should proceed, but with it we have to devolve taxing powers. Until that is done, this whole exercise in devolution will frustrate the purpose of those who support it.

Mr. Dalyell: If my memory serves me right, I recall that in that same article Professor Wilson pointed out that there would be in the Assembly people who, not dishonourably but as a matter of principle, would want to flout financial disciplines precisely because they could see that, by doing so, they would get those very financial powers that had


eluded them and that they wanted. If the Assembly were to start with financial indiscipline, those Members would see it as part of their case to flout financial disciplines in order to get the very financial powers that they wanted. That should be said. I am not saying that it would be dishonourable. It would be logical political pressure.
I agree that under the Government's proposals the office of Secretary of State becomes a non-job, and that if it does not go immediately, it will go within the early years, if not within months.
There have been certain occasions in these debates when I hoped that senior Ministers, such as the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be present. This is no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. It is merely that I would have liked the Labour Cabinet to hear the views expressed at the beginning of this debate, pointing inevitably to the truth of the situation, that we are bound at the very least for a federal State. I wish that my Government would at the most senior level really face up to the choices. There are only three possible choices—a federal State, roughly the status quo, or the point of view represented by the Scottish National Party.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We started with this on day 1. We are now on day 8.

Mr. Dalyell: I will come to the amendment in great detail, Sir Myer. It is because these truths are uncomfortable that I am commenting on what others have said.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. They are not uncomfortable to the Chair. The Chair's duty is to see that we carry out the Standing Orders of the House. The principle of whether we have an Assembly has been disposed of and does not arise on this amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: It may be your opinion. Sir Myer, that it has been disposed of but, with respect, it has been—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The debate on Second Reading has been disposed of.

Mr. Dalyell: Then I will come to the particular point raised on the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) raised the key question of whether Mr. Kerr Fraser, the new Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Office, would opt to become a servant of the Assembly or decided to remain part of the Civil Service. I agree that this is a watershed decision. My suspicion is that, if the Bill goes through, knowing the realities of power, Mr. Kerr Fraser will opt for the Assembly, but if he does so, it will involve very big issues for the Home Civil Service, and the issue here is neither more nor less than the break-up of the Home Civil Service and all that follows from that. I think that I have the assent of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian on that.

Now I come to—

The First Deputy Chairman: The amendment?

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, Sir Myer, very precisely.
I want to follow the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. During the recess I had complaints from both the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and Mr. Cameron, the faculty's expert on these matters. They authorised me to say that they are still worried about the vagueness of the schedules. They say that their complaints in their document of February 1977, whch many of us have had, have not been met.
It is a misfortune of this Committee that there is no Back Bench Scottish lawyer on this side of the Committee. I am not a lawyer, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State is. He asked for concrete examples, so I shall refer to certain specific examples given in a document of February 1977, which Mr. Kenneth Pritchard, Secretary of the Law Society of Scotland, says still stands.
On page 2, the document says:
The Council has not found it easy to trace any discernible principle of rationale upon which the subjects to be devolved have been selected, and is of the opinion that this will cause difficulty for the Judicial Committee, or any other Court, in attempting to provide a corpus of consistent rulings on the legislative competence of the Assembly.
I was going to make a short intervention, but my hon. Friend asked for concrete examples, so I turn now to the question of company law. The document


says that the Council of the Law Society of Scotland has considered whether the law relating to limited liability companies is devolved, and goes on to say that the Bill provides that
the civil law of natural and juristic persons and unincorporated bodies is devolved. It might be thought that the law relating to companies, as juristic persons, is devolved—although the reference to unincorporated bodies (presumably excluding incorporated bodies, such as companies) would immediately suggest a doubt. Another doubt would be raised by the specific reference in Group 23 to 'bankruptcy' with no corresponding reference to liquidation.
The document adds that the Bill
goes on to provide that there is not included in any of the Groups in this part of the Schedule (Part 1) the law relating to (a) any form of public registration or licensing in relation to those matters (other than public registration or licensing included in or related to any other Group).
I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by going on with these examples. They are all in writing. The document adds, however:
Presumably the view is taken that the law relating to companies and liquidation should not be devolved because that would involve a risk of inconsistencies being introduced, which would be unacceptable by reason of the importance of maintaining 'a common framework for trade'. The Council has had difficulty in understanding the basis for distinguishing between companies on the one hand and partnerships on the other; between liquidation, which is not devolved, and bankruptcy which is; particularly in view of the professed aim of developing Scots Law as a 'coherent system'.
On the subject of the law on employment, on page 5, the document says:
The Council is therefore uncertain as to how far the Assembly will have legislative competence in this field.
7.0 p.m.
On page 6 it states that the Society
has not found it easy, in dealing with these basic and obvious examples, to determine what is and what is not devolved, or any principle upon which distinctions are made; and expects that similar difficulties may be experienced by members of the Assembly. It is of the opinion that the draftsmanship … will require to be improved if dispute and uncertainty are to be minimised.
May I make so bold as to turn to the memorandum, which, I am told by Mr. Cameron and the dean of the faculty, Dean MacKay, is still relevant in that the main objections have not been met? Page 4 of the document issued by the Faculty of Advocates says that

the terms … are so wide and indefinite that they place no real limit on the power of the Secretary of State to refer a Bill. It is difficult to conceive any matter on which the Assembly can legislate which could not be said to affect indirectly a non-devolved matter.
Page 7 of the document refers to borrowing powers, and it is for this reason that it is of special relevance to what took place yesterday. We should have discussed this issue yesterday, but we never got round to it. [Interruption.] It is not the fault of my hon. Friend the Minister of State and neither is it my fault. A situation has arisen in which I do not think it can be gainsaid that it is unfortunate that the Committee has not considered this matter. The Faculty of Advocates says that the Bill is designed to prevent the Assembly from altering the borrowing powers of any public body. It goes on:
Unfortunately, however, 'public body' is not a term of art, and it is very difficult to decide what the extent of this paragraph is. For example, is a company incorporated by Royal Charter a public body? Or a trust incorporated by private Act? A similar uncertainty applies in the the use of the term 'body' … It would probably be preferable to list the bodies to which paragraphs 3 and 4 are intended to apply.
I am conscious of the time but I wanted to go into this at some length because the opinion of the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society on this subject is relevant.
Some of us will be continuing to ask these bodies whether, with their professional expertise, they continue to be worried. When these major law bodies in Scotland complain about the vagueness of legislation which will come from the House, which members of these bodies will be expected to determine, we have to go on asking whether they are satisfied. The Minister of State, in argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, rightly emphasised the need for clarity. We have a right to be assured by those who know in the Scottish legal profession that they are also satisfied that clarity exists.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: This has been a useful and valuable debate. It has been a reflective one in many ways—a debate in which many arguments have been addressed with cogency and clarity. It was interesting to see the battle between the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and the Minister of


State when they tackled the main definitions in the Bill. For once, as I listened to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, I found myself more in agreement with him than with the Minister of State. It seemed that there was a logic implicit in what the hon. Gentleman was saying which was not contained in the Minister's speech.
The Minister made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible. He has sought a method of spelling out in detail the functions and powers of the Scottish Assembly. This is the area that is bound to lead to difficulty in future. I have some comments on the possible position of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is clear that whatever happens after this Bill is put into effect the Secretary of State for Scotland will not be occupying the position that his predecessors have occupied. His role, as well as his duties, will have changed. It is clear that within time the office of Secretary of State will dwindle away.
It has only been over the past 100 years that a Secretary for Scotland was created who, in time, was elevated to the position of Secretary of State with a seat in the Cabinet. The powers were given in a gradual fashion. It is clear that if this Bill becomes an Act, approved by the referendum, the office of Secretary of State will change dramatically. I believe that it will disappear. If that is so it is probably desirable that we should address ourselves to some of the arguments contained in the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). If we are to have a situation in which Scotland's representation in the Cabinet is reduced—a representation which, I may add, is only about one in 24, due to the unfortunate inability of Scots Members of Parliament to get into the top political ranks in the United Kingdom—it would be desirable that, from the outset, the First Secretary of the Scottish Assembly should enter into a direct negotiating relationship with members of the Cabinet or with the Prime Minister. There are strong arguments for that situation and for it to be recognised.
What is clear is that if we adopt the detailed and specified functions that are being given to the Scottish Assembly, set out in the Bill, and particularly in Schedule 10, we shall enter a maze. It

would have been better in my view—a view shared by the hon. Member for North Angus and Meatus (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), and by the Liberal Party in relation to last year's Scotland and Wales Bill—to adopt the Northern Ireland format or at least that format that was contained in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. If that had been adopted it would have given an opportunity for flexibility and for the powers to be settled and worked out. If there were any doubts about the reservations there would be a role for the courts to play.
As it is—and here the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is correct—the Scottish legal bodies are in doubt about the method adopted. I refer initially to the report of the Law Society of Scotland on the Scotland and Wales Bill, even accepting that there has been a great improvement in the drafting of the Scotland Bill as compared with its predecessor. The Council of the Law Society of Scotland says on page 2 of its report, that Schedule 6, now Schedule 10
prescribes the groups of subjects which are devolved. The Council has not found it easy to trace any discernable principle of rationale upon which the subjects to be devolved have been selected, and is of the opinion that this will cause difficulty for the Judicial Committee, or any other court, in attempting to provide a corpus of consistent rulings on the legislative competence of the Assembly.
This attitude was reflected recently in an article that appeared in the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland, when a reference was made in these terms:
In answer to the White Paper 'Our Changing Democracy' the Council, as long ago as January 1976 stated unequivocally that an attempt to define too precisely the devolved subjects could be productive of dispute. The Council suggested that devolved subjects should be defined by stating in a general way what was or ought to be reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. Regrettably this view was ignored and the Scotland and Wales Bill attempted in Schedule 6 to specify by definition the devolved matters. In its memorandum on that Bill the Council reiterated its concern at this method of definition. Yet again the Council's views have not borne fruit, for the devolved issues are once more spelt out in detail in Schedule 10 of the new Bill.
That is the up-to-date view, as at December 1977, of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland, unless it has intimated to the contrary to the Minister, which would be surprising. Its proposals would make for a much more coherent


expression of the responsibilities of the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive. I accept that it is probably a question of approach, that there is a choice to be made.
The analysis conducted by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby was, in this instance, a good one. I got the impression, from what the hon. Member was saying, that it appeared that the Conservative Party was once more prepared to make some sort of lurch in its attitude to devolution. It seemed that today the hon. Member was more in agreement with the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian and with his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns than he would have appeared to be from previous debates. However, I am sure that whatever is said from the Conservative Front Bench it will not inhibit its occupants from voting whichever way they feel at the time, because they have an eccentric record in that direction.
There is one valuable point that could be made, but that has not so far been mentioned. This relates to the transfer to the Scottish Assembly of powers now held by the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says that the Bill will result in increased public service manpower and increased costs. It says that more than 200 staff will be wanted for the manning of the Scottish Assembly and it adds that
the number of civil servants in Scotland will increase by about 750 over forecast levels. This figure includes staff to support the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General.
I do not know how many staff that Department will require, but there will be staff savings on the present set-up, because if the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General is to look at the affairs of the Scottish Assembly, it will be done by the staff who do that at present for the Secretary of State for Scotland. His budget, therefore, will be reduced, or at any rate it could be. If there were a clarification of the powers, and if the powers now held by the Secretary of State for Scotland were transferred to the Assembly, even allowing for an increment to meet the work force for the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General, there would be a saving. I am sure that 750 civil servants will not be necessary, because civil servants employed on work for

the Secretary of State for Scotland will do similar work for the Scottish Assembly, and there will be a financial saving there each year.
I suspect that some of the 750 Civil Service jobs are intended to deal with co-ordination. We shall have the Secretary of State for Scotland monitoring the activities of the First Secretary to the Scottish Assembly and his Ministers, and in turn the Treasury will be monitoring what the Secretary of State for Scotland is doing.
One thing offered by the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian is that it will save on some of the expenditure that has been predicted and there will be a much more functional transfer of powers. That will be far better all round, and, therefore. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: You have said, Sir Myer, that there are many more amendments to be considered, and therefore I shall be brief.
As always during these debates, I find that I learn a great deal from the speeches from both sides of the Committee. What I seldom hear, apart from what the Minister, who is very fluent, says, is any convincing defence of the different clauses of the Bill by Members on the Government side.
The amendment, moved with intellectual distinction and great candour by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), amounts, in principle, to a further step in the direction of making Scotland a federal State within, unfortunately for his purposes, a unitary United Kingdom State. Perhaps he wants a federal State—I do not know—but as we are not to have one, and do not have one, this extra power for the Scottish Assembly will be illogical and difficult.
I do not want a Scottish Assembly and therefore I can hardly be expected to approve of the amendment, but I am concerned about the rôle of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the 71 Scottish Members who will be in this Parliament. It seems that this great post of Secretary of State for Scotland will become a veritable bed of nails under the


new dispensation, whatever happens. His limited scope in this House will be equalled only by the limited scope of the unfortunate 71 Scottish Members who will remain here. That will be a loss to the House, and a diminution of its powers.
Once again, here we are, half-way through the 14 days allotted to debating the Bill under the guillotine procedure, debating an amendment that goes to the heart of the contradictions in the Bill. This afternoon we heard a good deal about the attempt to divorce policy from administration in respect of large areas of highly important political subjects, which will cause only further confusion in an extremely confused situation.
This is rather like trying to play a game of chess. One has to decide not only where the king and queen are, but also the knights, the bishops and pawns. We have here the frontiers of power between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the United Kingdom Parliament and the powers of the new Assembly. I think that these frontiers will prove to be extremely foggy and indistinct. What I am certain of is that, whatever its political complexion, the new Assembly will demand more and more powers to itself. No doubt that is what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian wants, and some of that will be effected by the amendment.
We have once again put ourselves into a state of great confusion. I missed only about three minutes of the speeches that have been made today. I admit that I might have missed something vital, but it seems to me that it will be difficult to pass an examination in Scotland on what the powers will be and on the different people involved in this highly confused situation.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to misinterpret me. I am not arguing that the Assembly should demand more and more power. I suggest that if the approach is adopted that carves out subsection after subsection of the devolved powers the Assembly will adopt that line, but that if the grant of powers is clear-cut the Assembly will not demand more powers, and may even hand some back.

Mr. Stokes: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view.
I hope that the Minister of State, who is always very courteous and obliging, will not take this amiss. He goes through everything at great speed and with great complacency, as though the whole thing is a piece of cake. I find it all extremely indigestible, as I think do most people in the United Kingdom, and certainly most English people.

Mr. Sproat: The Committee is in the debt of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) today, as it was yesterday, for enabling us to discuss two extremely important aspects of the Bill. As always, our sorrow is that the shadow of the guillotine prevents us from exploring the matter in as much depth as we should like to do. Because we are all anxious to get on to other amendments and groups of amendments, I shall be more than usually brief.
I use this debate on the powers that are to be devolved to the Scottish Assembly to say, first, that, grateful as I am to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, I cannot support his case, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), which will come as no surprise to them. The Minister of State is probably shaking with fear and embarrassment that I shall go on to say that for once I shall support him, but I assure him that I shall spare him that by abstaining, should there be a Division.
I shall use this debate to show how these powers, whether they be devolved under the method favoured by the Minister of State or the methods favoured by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, will lead to major losses of influence for Scotland. There will be four major losses for Scotland consequent upon this Bill's becoming an Act in anything resembling its present form.
First, the Secretary of State for Scotland will lose three-quarters of his powers. That is a most generous estimate. In Scotland we have always believed that it was an advantage to have our own Secretary of State in this House. The best that we can hope for is a Secretary of State shorn of three quarters of his powers. The worst we can hope for, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr.


Wilson) said, is that we shall have no Secretary of State at all.
That is the first major loss. I hope that when they read of this debate through the media the people of Scotland will remember this fact, particularly in terms of the referendum. I hope that they will remember the inevitable losses for Scotland which this Bill will mean.
Second, we shall lose the particular and individual Scottish voice in the Cabinet which is where the decisions with regard to Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom are most importantly made. They are made not in the Scottish Assembly but in the Cabinet, and we shall have lost that voice in the Cabinet. Whatever view one has of different Secretaries of State of different political parties, none the less the fact that we in Scotland have our own Secretary of State is an advantage which I am surprised that hon. Members representing other parts of the country do not resent more often. My hon. Friends are very modest and patient in the way in which they allow Scotland to have this advantage.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who graced our debate earlier, often tells us that there is a higher level of unemployment in Liverpool than in Glasgow. Does he have a specific voice in the Cabinet with which to put the views of Merseyside? No. That advantage will be lost to Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It may well be that one reason why certain English Members do not want an English Secretary of State is that they have come to the conclusion that a territorial Secretary of State is not much good and that they prefer the existing system. Does the hon. Gentleman accept the remarks made in disclosures in the Crossman diaries and in the interview with Sir Richard Marsh on television recently, when both gentlemen indicated that the Scottish Secretary of State was in their eyes one of no great merit with regard to general policy matters? One cannot say that the right non. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is not a figure of some standing as an individual politician, but they tended to discount him as a Secretary of State.

Mr. Sproat: The manner in which Sir Richard Marsh managed British Rail would not encourage me to accept his

judgment on other matters. I also disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I regard the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) as a formidable figure, irrespective of the political party to which he belongs, and I would always like to have him on my side. It is a loss for Scotland when a man of that calibre does not speak for Scotland in Cabinet.
The third loss that Scotland will suffer as a result of the powers to be devolved under the clause is financial. Scotland will lose about £500 million a year, a little more or a little less. There is no way in which this House, when there is a devolved Assembly in Scotland, will allow Scotland to retain the 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. per capita greater sum than people in other parts of the United Kingdom receive.
Not only shall we have a shorn Secretary of State and lose our place in the Cabinet as well as £500 million, but we shall also inevitably lose some, if not the majority of our 71 Members of Parliament. For Scotland to have a diminished representation in this House which will be responsible for matters such as taxation, oil, defence and foreign policy, must be a diminution of the control and influence in Scotland over these vital matters.
Perhaps I may also, not too immodestly, add that there would be a loss to this House if it were to lose half of its Scottish Members. Some Members may be better or worse than others, but the House of Commons as a whole benefits from our presence. Just as Scotland itself would lose out in influence if its number of Members were to be reduced—

Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Sproat: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is getting so worked up. He is rarely present in the Chamber even during those debates that he initiates. He should not deny other hon. Members who have sat throughout the debate the chance to say what they wish to say. He says that this is a Second Reading speech. I happen to be referring to broad points because I believe it is the broad and relevant points which most demonstrate the fallacies in the clause and in the amendment. That I am perfectly entitled to do and I shall not be restricted, except by the Chair, to those narrow points


which would forbid me from pointing out that the powers devolved under the Clause will mean that there must be fewer Scottish Members in this House.
I close by emphasising that Scotland will lose three-quarters of the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland, its voice in the Cabinet, about £500 million a year which is pumped into Scotland through the Treasury as well as the benefit of 71 Members of Parliament. If we lost three-quarters of our Members of Parliament there would be only 17 Members instead of 71. That would be a disaster for Scotland and for this House.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) is a distinguished constitutional historian. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is a distinguished constitutional lawyer. They are both agreed on one proposition—that in drawing up these devolved and semi-devolved powers which are set out in the relevant schedules the most important principle that ought to have guided the Government was the need for clarity and certainty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby pointed out that in the Irish legislation it had been possible to define these devolved powers with a great deal more clarity and certainty. I know that it is always a pleasure for both politicians and lawyers to enjoy a bit of fun at the expense of parliamentary draftsmen. But as I listened to these debates, and the persistent criticism about the schedules lacking clarity, I asked myself whether there ever had been any intention to achieve clarity.
Was it perhaps the wish of those highly intelligent and somewhat Machiavellian gentlemen who sit on the Benches opposite to achieve a situation of chaos? I noted that with considerable amusement and felt that these devolved powers were defined in a manner calculated to give rise to the greatest uncertainty, conflict and misunderstanding.
These confused powers are fenced in by two very clear reserve matters. On the one hand, there was the clear certainty that the United Kingdom Parliament would retain firm control over all financial and economic matters and that, as has been pointed out in earlier deliberations,

means a very substantial diminution in the power of the Scottish Assembly with regard to perhaps 95 per cent. of the legislation that it might seek to consider.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby that one has to look at the context in which these powers are defined. I looked at Clause 62. It is plain there that the reserve powers which the Secretary of State has in respect of so-called Community matters or foreign obligations are defined in the widest possible terms—not only in the widest possible terms but in terms which can be interpreted in the most subjective way by the Minister concerned. So we have the classic situation of the dishonesty that lies at the very heart of this proposal for devolution. We have a confused offer of increased powers to a Scottish Assembly, with all the appearance of a national Parliament.
7.30 p.m.
But in spite of the confused offer of apparent increased power, every attempt is made to retain at Westminster the reality of power, whether in terms of controlling finances and economic policy or controlling the multiplicity of internal matters which may affect external relations. They are to be firmly controlled here at Westminster.
The Bill is a deceit entered into for electoral purposes. The reality is a situation of the gravest instability which is perpetrated by a dishonest Government understanding well that the purse strings and all those multiplicity of matters which impinge on our relations with other powers remain here.
So it is that the capacity for interference is vast. Where there is that capacity for interference it is better to leave the matters confused. We are not dealing with a technical matter or a little bit of a sally at the expense of the highly intelligent parliamentary draftsman. The confusion in this definition is an intentional confusion. It is an intentional confusion so that power in the last resort may remain here.

Mr. David Crouch: I do not want to mislead the Committee in any way, but for once I may dismay the Minister of State by not supporting him as I have done on other occasions in the sittings of the Committee, and cause embarrassment to myself at some of the things


that he said about my complete understanding of the whole process of devolution.
Like the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), though to a lesser extent, I lecture on the workings of this Parliament, sometimes to foreign civil servants. I always tell them that we have a Committee procedure for amending Bills in which we take note of the representations and go through the clauses line by line and word by word. In this way we tidy up legislation and make it as near perfect as possible. We have that opportunity today. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian has made a contribution to improving the Bill by his amendment. The hon. Member is a devolutionist. He believes in it, as I do. He is not attempting to produce chaos. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) voiced his dismay that there might be chaos under Clause 62. But the hon. Member's amendment seeks to make a much more general and broad sweep of devolved matters to the Assembly and the Executive.
Reference has been made this afternoon to the Government of Ireland Act 1920. I, too, go back to that Act time and time again. I cannot help thinking that, with all the inexperience that we in the British Parliament have over the years on matters of devolution, we knew more about it in 1920 than we seem to know about it today. There was one aspect particularly on industrial problems and production covered by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The Act stated that
articles which are brought into Great Britain … from Ireland, or into Ireland from Great Britain … shall be deemed to be articles exported or imported".
That was a clear, broad, general statement. There was no question of Ireland being able to levy taxes and excise duties on these products at all. That was covered in another clause.
There is another factor which I remember from my industrial experience up to 1973. It was that if one was a manufacturer in England seeking to establish a factory in any part of the United Kingdom, one part of the United Kingdom which offered great attractions was Northern Ireland. The Government there sought to attract industry. They had

devolved powers and they had an incentive to attract. They could compete with the other regions of the United Kingdom, often with greater effectiveness. Today, under direct rule, that is not the case. Industry is directed to Northern Ireland. It is the Government of Southern Ireland, strangely enough, that can compete more effectively, because without stretching the phrase too far, there is complete devolution and complete separation. It is another country. But it can offer very attractive terms.
By making broader devolution responsibilities in the way that was done under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, rather than the specification of a half step towards devolution, which the Government are proposing, a better deal was done for Ireland in 1920 than is proposed in this clause of the Bill. So I agree that if one believes in devolution the hon. Member's amendment is a valuable and constructive one. I strongly endorse it, but the Committee will not follow my example, because it knows that I believe that devolution is a good step.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful for the way in which hon. Members have responded to the amendment. We have had a helpful discussion. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, too, for his detailed and careful answer. He tried to suggest that the functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland were not in any sense logical. He cited the cairn on which the stones had been heaped over the years. The functions of the Secretary of State, he said, had been added to and did not represent a logical bundle. But he must accept that these functions were added to in every case for a reason. In each case someone in this Parliament thought that a function was better handled in Scotland by Scottish civil servants on a Scottish basis than by a United Kingdom Government. We must be told why these arguments do not equally apply to the devolution of that power to a Scottish Assembly.
If it were sensible to devolve administratively it would be sensible, all other things being equal, to devolve politically and administratively to the Assembly. When I asked my hon. Friend to say why certain functions were sensibly devolved to the Secretary of State or the Scottish Office, but would not be sensibly devolved to the Assembly, he


did what I had expected him to do. He produced two sets of reasons. One concerned the question of external implications through the EEC. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who had experience of EEC negotiations and was a Minister in charge of agriculture and fisheries, dealt with that point admirably.
In the EEC there are two possibilities. First, the administration could act as an agency for regulations from Brussels, and in that case there is no reason why devolution should not apply. Secondly there is the question of policy issues arising. Where a policy issue arises, as with fisheries, why is it that fishermen say that on the whole they would prefer fisheries to be devolved? Why did they put that point to me when I had to slip out during the debate? It was because they believe that a Scottish Assembly, with a Scottish Fisheries Minister, could put a strong case to the United Kingdom Government, which would then put that case in Brussels. They thought that this would be a better and stronger method of putting the case of the Scottish inshore fishermen than directly by means of a United Kingdom message, because there are many local considerations to be taken into account. The German Lander put their case in Brussels in the same sort of way through a single German Minister of Agriculture. I therefore want to establish that the fact that something is subject to Brussels regulations does not render it unsuitable for devolution.
The Minister of State will recognise that the margin of what is open to EEC regulation is not a close one. If being part of the EEC means that we cannot let a subordinate Assembly be involved with a regulation, because it is something coming from Brussels and therefore only the Foreign Office is involved, I point out that the margin is constantly shifting, because the EEC regulations and directives will be increasing, and applying to increasing areas.

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that that is why an element of confusion is necessary, so that against that confusion we have the hard and increasing restriction of Clause 62?

Mr. Mackintosh: It is a question not of confusion being necessary but of

scope for the devolved Administration. That was one of the reasons that the Minister of State gave, and I do not think that it holds. His other reason disturbed me considerably, when he turned to economic powers. Economic powers have been accrued by the Secretary of State for Scotland as a result of pressure from the Scottish population. The pressure of Scottish political events has forced the Secretary of State to accept many economic powers.
When I first came to this House, the Secretary of State for Scotland had no economic powers. There were United Kingdom powers held by the Minister for Industry. It was the fact that the Secretary of State was the spokesman for Scotland which led to these economic powers being handed on to him one by one.
The case I have been making has been that if these are Scottish issues, on which the Scottish electorate expect the people they choose to represent them to be responsible, they will expect whoever is running the Scottish Assembly to have this kind of responsibility. They will not allow a Scottish Chief Secretary—or Prime Minister, as they will call him—to say "I am awfully sorry, but this has nothing to do with me. This is a power which is in the hands of the chap down the corridor, the Secretary of State for Scotland." If the Chief Executive has any political standing in Scotland, all these matters will be laid at his door, just as they were laid at the door of the Secretary of State.
The Minister of State said that these matters must be kept for the Secretary of State for Scotland. As an example, he said how useful it was in his own case, as a constituency Member of Parliament, to have matters which might be United Kingdom matters dealt with locally quite quickly by Scottish civil servants. With deep respect to the Minister of State, I felt that on this occasion he was slightly confusing matters. There will be no problem, after the passing of this Bill, of a United Kingdom Minister for Industry having. Scottish civil servants to settle Scottish problems on the spot. There are Scottish civil servants in the Ministry of Pensions, for example, who study pensions cases on the spot. We are not talking about a devolved group of people but about devolved


power to make decisions for which people are politically responsible.
7.45 p.m.
The Minister of State is envisaging a situation in which Mr. X, Prime Minister of Scotland, head of the Scottish Assembly, is being held responsible for the general health of Scotland. He may be a Conservative or a Labour person. There is a second person, the Secretary of State, who has the power over devolved economic matters, and who will be of generally less importance, because he has a lesser administrative rôle. He may be of a different political party. This is fundamentally a recipe for conflict and disaster.

Mr. John Smith: I think that my hon. Friend is making too much of that matter. As to the point concerning industry, when something became a matter for the Minister, although it was dealt with by a civil servant in the Department of Industry located in Glasgow, it would go to a London-based Minister rather than to a Minister based in Scotland. Ministers take decisions from time to time as well as civil servants.

Mr. Mackintosh: I accept that, but if it is a local policy decision to be taken by a local Minister, the expectation will be that this will be by a Minister responsible to the Assembly. Presumably we shall not have, in the truncated office of the Secretary of State, five junior Ministers under him. If it is his responsibility, and not that of a Minister responsible to the Assembly, clashes and difficulties will arise. I am sorry that the Minister of State thought that I was using exaggerated language, but I repeat that there will be great difficulty arising if the head of the Scottish Assembly is to say "I am sorry, but economic affairs are none of my business in Scotland".
It was precisely the inability to deal with such matters that forced Government after Government to increase the economic powers of the Secretary of State. When I first came to this House, the Secretary of State had an economic adviser but no economic planning department. All these powers were in the hands of the United Kingdom Minister for Industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said time and again, it was precisely

because he was in some sense Scotland's Minister, and expected to be Scotland's Minister in circumstances of this sort, that these powers had to be given to him.
If the person who is head of the Scottish Executive is to have any political meaning, he will be regarded as Scotland's Minister, and it will be very difficult, particularly if he is of a different political party, for him to say "I am sorry, but on this point it is that man who controls half the old Department of Agriculture and a bit of the old Department of Economics who has to handle this matter. You have to turn to him, because he is part of the United Kingdom Cabinet."
I am arguing here not for federation but for clear-cut devolution. I am arguing for a devolution which will minimise conflict and trouble, and in which the expectations of the electorate can be fulfilled. It would be very unsatisfactory if we were to spend the next 15 years amending the Act bit by bit. I want to see a settlement which is generous and which can then be held, and which will be a resting place for Scottish politics.
In the helpful reply made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State he tried to suggest that there were only two possibilities, either confusion, or clarity of the kind that he believes he has produced in the allocation of functions. He also said, in a sotto voce aside, that one could not be both generous and clear. I do not accept this.

Mr. John Smith: rose—

Mr. Mackintosh: I do not think that it is a question of confusion or clarity. The real issue is one of scope or limitation.

Mr. John Smith: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has misinterpreted me. He said on one occasion that he wanted the Bill to be both generous and clear-cut. My observation is that generosity does not necessarily lead one to be clear-cut. He has an argument also about wider scope for devolution, with which I happen to disagree. But I say that instead of there being vague powers, they ought to be precisely defined. Surely it is possible to be both generous and precise.

Mr. Mackintosh: That is my point, and I am grateful to the Minister of State. I believe that one can be both generous


and precise. One can give clear-cut powers over the whole field of education. In my original speech I referred to the tremendously difficult position of the colleges of agriculture, where education is devolved but where the agricultural work is not devolved. We have the same sort of problem with the poor fish. When it is in the sea, it is a national fish. When it is in the mouth of a river, it becomes a devolved fish. This sort of arrangement does not make for clarity. It would be much easier if the existing powers concerning education, health and housing of the Scottish Office were to be devolved. It may be true that some of these powers ought never to have been devolved for Scotland. If that is so, they should be taken back to Whitehall. The argument is aimed not at centralisation, but seeks to emphasise that in attempting to start off devolution successfully Governments possibly have devolved too much from time to time. There is not a case for a rump Secretary of State sitting in Edinburgh with quasi powers.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) spoke of the Secretary of State's role. He agreed with the logic of the argument but said that the Secretary of State would act as a go-between. I disagree with him, and I ask him to contemplate the possibility that if the Scottish Assembly has real power—and it is bound to have some political power because it will be directly elected—the people concerned will say that they represent Scotland, as they will, and will express themselves dissatisfied with the lack of finance. Will they be prepared to turn to a junior Minister—because that is what he will be, and possibly a Minister of another political complexion—and ask him to trot down to London to obtain more money? They will do no such thing.
Any hon. Member with political nous and experience well knows that if we were part of a Scottish Assembly we would be rushing to appear on television and would make a row about such an issue, saying "We are being starved of finance and wish to see the Prime Minister". We would certainly not turn to a subordinate Secretary of State who would be No. 24 or No. 25 in the Cabinet. I cannot think who the No. 25 man would be. Perhaps it would be the Secretary of

State for Wales. However, I do not wish to be offensive to any of my colleagues. I repeat that we would not turn to such a man and tell him to run this little errand. It would have to be done by those running the Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell: Surely the Secretary of State or the Permanent Secretary involved would be loyal to the Home Civil Service. If that is not the case, what will it mean in terms of the break-up of the home Civil Service and loyalty to the Assembly?

Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend raises a most important matter. Of course, such persons will have to be loyal to the Assembly and to their masters. There may be interchangeability. I know that many hon. Members dislike the example of the Stormont Government, but it must be said that administratively that system worked reasonably well for 50 years. There was common recruitment, common pay and a common Civil Service Commission, but one that was attached to the Civil Service in Northern Ireland. The responsibility was towards the Ministers in Northern Ireland. If my hon. Friend is right, the only difficulty that will arise is that there will be two separate offices, one responsible to London and one to Edinburgh.
For these reasons the proposals in this amendment make for a lack of conflict, clarity and ease of working. The object is not to go further than the Bill goes. It is not intended to make a federal system work, but to make the existing devolution proposals work more satisfactorily. I believe that if federalism ever came about in the United Kingdom—and I should be surprised it it did—it would come about in only one way. That would be if the Scottish devolved system worked so well that people in the North of England took the view "They have got what they want. We want more and we want it for ourselves". If on the other hand it proves to be a bad government, corrupt, costly and a mistake, they will take another view.
I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that this amendment is designed to obtain clarity, to minimise conflict and to produce a workable scheme. It is in the tradition of devolution in Northern Ireland administratively and it has


worked in that respect. However, as no other devolution I have ever seen is as obscure and as complicated as that set out in the Bill, I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 35, Noes, 133.

Division No. 59]
AYES
[7.55 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Jessel, Toby
Steel, Rt Hon David


Beith, A. J.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Knox, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Crawford, Douglas
McCartney, Hugh
Thompson, George


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
MacCormick, Iain
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Macfariane, Neil
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Freud, Clement
Onslow, Cranley
Watt, Hamish


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Pardoe, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Glyn, Dr Alan
Penhaligon, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Reid, George



Henderson, Douglas
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. John P. Mackintosh and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith.




NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Golding, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Gourlay, Harry
Palmer, Arthur


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Park, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Parker, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Perry, Ernest


Bates, Alf
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Radice, Giles


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hooley, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Boardman, H.
Hunter, Adam
Roderick, Caerwyn


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Ross, Rt Hon W.(Kilmarnock)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Sever, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Silverman, Julius


Buchanan, Richard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Small, William


Campbell, Ian
John, Brynmor
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Snape, Peter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Spearing, Nigel


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stallard, A. W.


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kerr, Russell
Strang, Gavin


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dalyell, Tam
Litterick, Tom
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davidson, Arthur
Loyden, Eddie
Tinn, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McCartney, Hugh
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dempsey, James
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Doig, Peter
McElhone, Frank
Watkinson, John


Dormand, J. D.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Weetch, Ken


Dunnett, Jack
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
White, James (Pollok)


Edge, Geoff
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Whitehead, Phillip


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McNamara, Kevin
Whitlock, William


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Madden, Max
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fookes, Miss Janet
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woodall, Alec


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Molloy, William
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Newens, Stanley
Mr. Jim Marshall and


George, Bruce
Noble, Mike
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Ginsburg, David
Ogden, Eric

Schedule 10

MATTERS WITHIN LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF ASSEMBLY, AND WITHIN POWERS OF SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): We now come to Amendments Nos. 521 and 545—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I ask for a Division on Amendment No. 545, which will be taken with Amendment No. 521, after the debate that is judged to be necessary.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is a matter that I shall consider when the problem arises.

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 521, in page 48, leave out lines 1 to 4.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Amendment No. 545, in page 48, line 3, leave out "Family planning Abortion."

Sir J. Gilmour: The amendment seeks to leave out all of the words in Group 1 of the schedule. I move the amendment because many of us have received representations from the Scottish branch of the British Medical Association. It has been suggested that it would be right to take out of the Bill the whole of that group.
In previous debates we have discussed matters that affect Scotland where Scotland has especially different circumstances. We can be sure that the circumstances of having adequate health and hospital services are unique and the same throughout the country. Travelling in outlying districts is the only difference that comes to mind.
The BMA wishes the terms and conditions to remain on a United Kingdom basis. It is worried that if there is the devolvement incorporated in the Bill the "United Kingdom basis" will be prejudiced. It is true that the National Health Service in Scotland already has a considerable measure of devolution—for instance, we have our own home and health department. It would seem to be an advantage if the financing of the Health Service were outside the block grant. For that reason I believe that the amendment is well worth considering.
There are one or two other matters that arise not from Part I of the schedule but from Part II, on page 50. It is headed "Matters Not Included In The Groups". It sets out:
Control of drugs, medicinal products, biological substances and food.

Although the health requirements are devolved, those matters are kept under United Kingdom control.
There is a further point. Paragraph 22 of Part II refers to the
Terms and conditions of employment and related statutory rights and duties of employment
of those employed by the Scottish Office or in another way.
Paragraph 23 refers to
Any matter relating to the right to prosecute any offence
as not being a devolved matter. I wonder whether that is included in Amendment No. 545, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas Hamilton) is about to refer, which relates to family planning and abortion. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about that.
Another matter that the British Medical Association is anxious to draw to our attention is the fact that, in the event of the devolution of the National Health Service and the non-devolution of the universities, the four medical schools in Scotland may face problems involving separate academic and service components. The education of medical students and the training of doctors require resources beyond the fulfilment of the service component involved, and such resources are not the responsibility of the University Grants Committee. If medical education and training in Scotland are to remain at their present high level—our medical schools are probably second to none and have a higher reputation than anywhere else in the world—they will require finance out of all proportion to the needs of the population of Scotland, because Scotland is now and will remain for a long time an exporter of trained doctors.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, who I imagine is to reply, will be able to give the Committee some of the answers to these questions. I hope that the underlying fear expressed by the BMA—that by devolving this responsibility we shall have two separate standards operating in the medical profession in the United Kingdom—will be unfounded.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is true that within the medical profession there is considerable concern about what might happen to the National Health Service as a


result of devolution. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) was correct to point out that this matter is to a great extent concerned with remuneration, conditions and standards of service.
This view of what might happen to the NHS goes beyond the medical profession. One dilemma in discussing legislation such as this is that at times one must put aside one's overall view about the need or the desirability for devolution and consider the practicalities of the proposals. The Committee knows that I am not an enthusiast for devolution. I should have been much happier had we not started on this whole business. But, as it is, we have to look at the logic of the NHS being devolved and whether it is altogether bad that it should be devolved.
8.15 p.m.
I accept that, generally speaking, there should be a uniform provision of health care throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. There ought not to be differences in the provision of health care. Because of the way in which the hospital service has developed, some hospitals in England have specialised in particular areas of health care, such as heart surgery and kidney transplants. Because of the size of the population or the expertise available, a similar level of service has not been developed in Scotland. That does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong.
For example, if someone in Scotland requires an operation or specialist care which is not immediately available in a hospital in Scotland, there are adequate and good working arrangements to enable such a patient to go to London if that is where the treatment is available, and it often is. Indeed, there are arrangements to assist with travel facilities, the payment of fares for relatives to visit, especially if a child is involved, and maintenance for such relatives whilst they are in London or any other part of England.
I had always assumed, until a few minutes ago, that those arrangements would not be interfered with. I hope that I am right in assuming that nothing in the Bill which devolves the administration of the NHS will deny to any citizen, either in Scotland or in Wales, the facility of moving across the border to obtain necessary health care and hospital treatment in any part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, someone living in England

might wish to move to Scotland to get special medical care which is not available immediately in England. I assume that the ability of any citizen to obtain medical treatment anywhere in the United Kingdom will in no way be diminished. In other words, if the prognosis of a patient's illness demands that he should go outside Scotland to get the necessary care that he requires, I hope that will still be available without difficulty. I am sure that will be so, because we are concerned only with the devolvement of administrative functions.
There is nothing wrong in any area of social policy with advances being made in one part of the country as opposed to to another or of administration in one part of the country being different from another.
Let us consider the whole history of social services in the United Kingdom. In many respects, because of its size, Scotland has been able to make imaginative progress, especially in social welfare, before it has been possible for such advances to be made elsewhere. One outstanding example is the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1972, which is far-reaching in its effects and is being copied in other parts of the United Kingdom. Scotland has made greater advances than have been made in other parts of the United Kingdom because of its size and its separate administrative arrangements.
Scotland has almost always had separate legislation covering the National Health Service. The NHS in Scotland was set up under legislation separate from that for England and Wales. Scotland has a separate and distinct NHS. Indeed, there was separate legislation for Scotland when the reorganisation of the Health Service took place a few years ago. The result is that Scotland's administrative setup for running its health services is different from that which operates in England and Wales. That different set-up has not led to a lower standard of health care for people in Scotland. Therefore, it is reasonable that the Health Service generally should be devolved to the Scottish Assembly.
The Scottish Assembly will have to do a job which is done at present very largely by the Scottish Home and Health Department, in conjunction and consultation with the area health boards. It has


to consider the priorities of spending, whether greater emphasis should be put on mental health, for example, where new hospitals should be built and whether major hospitals covering all kinds of specialities are required or whether the cottage hospital approach is preferable.
I concede immediately that the general development of health policy in the United Kingdom, despite the fact that we have always had separate legislation—except in one area that I will come to later—has been evolved, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said, by "gentle discussion and co-operation" between the health departments in England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. There has always been close co-operation and a cross-fertilisation of ideas.
What worries me about devolution of the Health Service to the Assembly is the possibility that the cross-fertilisation of ideas and the close co-operation, which have benefited both administrations, civil servants and the medical profession, will be affected. This has been a two-way traffic and if, as a result of devolution, the cross-fertilisation of ideas is stemmed completely it will be a bad thing for Scotland and for England and Wales.
Although there are some worries about this, by and large I take the view that there is nothing wrong with the devolution of administrative functions and legislation in the health services to Scotland. I enter this caveat: if the Scottish Assembly were to take major policy decisions contrary to the general view held throughout the country as a whole, there could be difficulty.
There are only two ways of dealing with such a position. For example, if on the emotive issue of pay beds the Scottish Assembly decided that it wanted to go against the general trend of reducing the number of pay beds and perhaps even increase them and give a greater place to private medicine, it would be very serious. There are two answers to that. The people of Scotland would just have to lump it. If we are to have devolution, the message must be driven home to the people time after time that not every decision taken by the new Assembly will be

according to the will of the majority. If there are swings and roundabouts, these will have to be accepted. People cannot come forward afterwards and complain that they are being treated differently from England. They will just have to accept it.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has had ministerial experience in the Scottish Office, so I shall put this question to him: supposing that a Conservative Government were in office in Edinburgh and it took this action on pay beds, and supposing that my hon. Friend were still the Labour Member for Aberdeen, North and one of our right hon. Friends was in office at 10 Downing Street, would he not feel an irrepressible urge to knock on the door of 10 Downing Street asking the Prime Minister to do something about the Government in Edinburgh and to stop them from pursuing a policy that was basically against the deepest political beliefs of the Westminster Government? Does he not believe, as I do, that therein are the deep seeds of conflict?

Mr. Hughes: Yes. My hon. Friend is reinforcing the second point that I wish to make. If a view is taken by any number of people who then make representations about it to me as their Member saying that they believe that the Scottish Administration is going contrary to the public will as they see it, it is not a question of an irresponsible urge. I make no secret of the fact that I would make no attempt to repress the urge. I would go straight to No. 10 to make the point that I believed that the Assembly was going contrary to the general public good of the United Kingdom as a whole, and of the people of Scotland in particular, and I would lose no time complaining about it.
However, I would complain on the basis of the services being provided and not on the basis of devolution. We have the seeds of conflict if people claim that the differences are caused by devolution. That is why I say that if decisions are taken which are believed by some to be contrary to the general wishes of the Scottish people they will have to accept that the differences are a result of different styles of Government. They will have the opportunity of turfing the Government out at the next election.
Of course there will be conflict, but since I still hope that there will be communication between the health departments of Scotland and of England and Wales, and because social policy relating to medical treatment has advanced greatly in the past decade and even more since the establishment of the NHS, I believe that the possibility of major changes taking place in the Assembly over health matters is unlikely. Therefore, I certainly would not support the particular amendment.
This is one of the areas in which we have to accept that the balance of probabilities for social policy and medical treatment, and administration generally, will follow a similar pattern. We cannot guarantee it, of course, but my experience is that the National Health Service, despite criticism, has a general ethos of providing free treatment, especially in hospitals, and this will be accepted by almost every person involved in the discussion of health matters. It is so clear cut that I do not see any tremendous difficulties.
I am in slight difficulty because the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) has not yet moved the amendent on family planning and abortion. He must make his own case, but I shall put my point because these amendments are being discussed together. In relation to Amendment No. 545 I do hope that the Under-Secretary, the Minister of State and, indeed, the Leader of the House do not have closed minds. If I recall rightly, they have not yet accepted any amendments to this Bill. This will be a good place to start. The amendment is very reasonable.
I do not take the view that family planning and abortion are not contentious matters. Certainly they are to a greater or lesser degree. The fact that there is a great deal of political controversy surrounding family planning and abortion and that they generate a great deal of heat, discussion and passion does not disqualify their being devolved and discussed in the Assembly. Indeed, some hon. Members might be glad if these issues were removed from our debates.
These are areas which have not been dealt with by separate Scottish Bills. Legislation on abortion has been carried out on a United Kingdom basis. Almost alone, it falls out of the pattern of matters

that have previously been under the control of the Secretary of State. There is no logical reason to include it as an administrative area that has previously been dealt with almost wholly in Scotland.
This is one area where it is imperative that we ensure that we have a policy for the whole United Kingdom and decisions that are carried out on a United Kingdom basis. Otherwise, we run into the difficulty of cross-border services. I do not think that such matters as specialist treatment would be affected by devolution, but family planning affects the day-to-day lives of women and there are enough problems in the general United Kingdom framework of ensuring equality of treatment in family planning and abortion not between Scotland and England or between Wales and Scotland, but between different administrative areas within the National Health Service. This is because of the policies pursued by consultants in charge of gynaecology and obstetrics in different parts of the country. Some women have to go a fair distance to get an abortion because of the practice in their areas.
8.30 p.m.
As this issue affects people so much, it should be dealt with on a United Kingdom basis. There should be no question of women having to leave the Scottish Health Service and cross the border to get an abortion or family planning assistance. There is a possibility that major differences of approach might be adopted in these areas. It is essential to have a general approach, especially on family planning. It is possible that we might end up with the sort of situation which existed between Northern Ireland and Eire, at least until recently. People from the South had to cross the border to buy contraceptives and then smuggle them back into the Republic. I know that this is not an exact parallel, because there are customs posts in Ireland, but in matters of ordinary human welfare there is a great deal of sound sense in having broad social policies dealt with in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on having spoken so ably on Amendment No. 545. I should like to put on record the position of the British Medical Association. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that he


was not enthusiastic about devolution, but that if we accept the logic of the Bill some form of devolution of health services must be taken for granted.
The BMA does not like devolution as it affects the medical profession, but being realistic, it recognises that there should be a fall-back position in case Group 1 is not removed. The association wants family planning and abortion to be dealt with on a United Kingdom basis.
The association accepts that there is already a substantial measure of administrative devolution in health matters. There was a separate Act of Parliament setting up the National Health Service in Scotland. This is administered by the Scottish Home and Health Department. The BMA is concerned lest the arrangement whereby separate services, such as housing, education and roads, have to compete for shares in the block grant allocation, and that this may lead to an inadequate share for the continuing development of the Health Service.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said, the BMA wishes to ensure that terms and conditions of service remain uniform throughout the United Kingdom, the review body of the General Medical Council being the main part of the machinery in recent years.
On general medical standards the BMA thinks that the following subjects should be dealt with on a United Kingdom basis: drug standards, quarantine regulations, vaccination requirements and other aspects within the whole field of community medicine. There are other areas which it thinks can work really effectively only if the law remains uniform. This applies particularly to family planning, abortion, transplant surgery, private practice and the control of nursing homes, which it would like dealt with on a United Kingdom basis.
The BMA thinks that standards of health here and entitlement to benefit should be uniform throughout the whole United Kingdom. It says that the relationship between the Health Service and the health administration in Scotland has been particularly good recently, and it very much hopes that this will continue.
On the specific subject of abortion, the BMA's fears—I really cannot say whether they are well grounded—are that there may be a different law on abortion in Scotland from that in England, and that this may cause serious problems from a practical point of view. It is making objections not on moral grounds but on the practicalities. The BMA says that there may be a flow of patients across the border. There is no way of telling whether there is anything in this fear, unless it is tried out. Only then would evidence be available.
If there were cross-border traffic and a shift of cases to the most advantageous part of the United Kingdom, the BMA thinks that this could lead to an upheaval in health services in Scotland. It does not want to see fees varying from one part of the United Kingdom to another as doctors cross the border every day. It thinks particularly that this might impair the free movement of doctors from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that it would be most undesirable if anything were done which harmed cross-fertilisation of ideas. What the BMA feels most strongly about is that one of the best features of the medical professional has been the relative ease with which doctors can move from one part of the United Kingdom to another and throughout the EEC in order to secure employment. It believes that this has helped substantially to improve the quality of research at Scottish universities. It feels that it would be much better to have one law on family planing and abortion in the United Kingdom.
I could go on at some length in mentioning the point that if the majority of Assembly Members voted one way on abortion and the majority of English Members of Parliament in the House of Commons voted another way, and it was a narrow vote, we might find that the Scottish Members of Parliament turned the balance if they voted in a different way. We might find that that would cause a certain amount of resentment. It seems that it would be more satisfactory to deal with this particular subject on a United Kingdom basis.
There was considerable force in the words of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North when he said that these matters


had in the past been dealt with on a United Kingdom basis, which reinforces the case. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, he was the Minister dealing with the Children Bill for most of the time two years ago. That is the kind of subject that I should have thought should still remain a United Kingdom subject.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will look very carefully again at the form of words used. I look forward to his reply.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate now that I shall be prepared to accept a request for a Division on Amendment No. 545.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I shall be very brief. I very much hope that the first of these amendments will be withdrawn or, if pressed to a Division, rejected. It seems to me that devolution of health services is of the essence of devolution. If one is to have devolution at all, one cannot retain on a United Kingdom basis so domestic a matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that in Scotland there could be a different standard of provision from that which obtained in England, but there is already a varying standard of provision between various parts of the United Kingdom, and I doubt very much whether the devolution of the health services will make the situation significantly different.
Of course, the nub of the argument is precisely what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) touched on when he was talking about the fears of the BMA. He said that the BMA feared that the allocation of resources between housing, education and health might be made in a way which was damaging to the health services in Scotland after devolution. That is what devolution is all about. If one has to have devolution at all it must be the right of the Scottish Assembly and Executive to decide on their priorities at a particular time and to put more resources into health, housing or education, within a finite total. The Assembly will be disposing a finite total of resources, as does the House of Commons.
The whole argument concerns the question whether decisions about priorities are taken within Scotland or Wales or by the United Kingdom. I strongly believe that

such priorities should be decided by the Assembly. Perhaps the Assembly would take the view that its priority, at least for a period, was to invest in housing and social welfare because it believed that that was the most effective way of raising the standard of health for the people of Scotland. It may well be that bad housing and poor social welfare services cause many of the problems with which the health services have to deal. To prevent is better than to cure. If that were the Assembly's view, it would be right. To say that the Assembly should have no power to control the health services, while it has power to control housing and welfare, would make very little sense.

Mr. Dalyell: Can my hon. Friend recall, when he was Minister, whether it was put to him on behalf of the medical profession that it feared that the Assembly would set up a health committee which would take over the responsibility of the regional hospital boards and therefore make medicine in Scotland rather less expert? What did my hon. Friend feel about that when he was a Minister?

Mr. Fowler: I have heard that argument. If the Assembly had a health committee I do not believe that it would seek to interfere in matters that were within the professional competence of doctors. Not I alone believe that a little more democracy in the control of the Health Service throughout the United Kingdom would be no bad thing. One does not wish to stray on to the ground of interfering with the experts, but there are areas of health administration, controlled by qualified medical practitioners, which are properly within the sphere of interest and responsibility of the general public through their elected representatives. I do not share the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
The hon. Member for Fife, East, who moved the amendment, suggested that there might be difficulty for the medical schools. The Government are not proposing that there should be devolution of the universities. Hence, they are not proposing that there should be devolution of the university medical schools. One reason for that is that Scotland is an over-producer, not only of highly qualified medical personnel but of highly qualified personnel in general. Scotland


is an over-producer in proportion to its population.
Scotland exports the products of Scottish universities mainly from its medical schools. For that reason it is important that we should not devolve the universities or medical schools. I do not anticipate any more difficulty in collaboration between the medical schools and the remainder of the health services after devolution than one has at the moment, not least because even now one is talking about collaboration between UGC-financed institutions and services financed by the Scottish Office. Even in terms of the development of medical schools, one is talking about what is a UGC responsibility, but a UGC responsibility exercised in collaboration with the appropriate health department, whether in Scotland or in England, because developments in medical schools take place only after detailed consultation with the appropriate health department. I imagine that that will continue after devolution. It is merely that the health department will have changed somewhat, because it will be responsible to the Assembly rather than being part of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, responsible to this House.
8.45 p.m.
I hope that the first amendment will be withdrawn, but I have considerable sympathy with the second. There is a special case about abortion in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North touched on it when he said that it was not simply because this was an area of political contention. It is one in which passions ran high. That is part of the difficulty. Nobody fears that in Scotland or in the United Kingdom there will be separate legislation on the possibility of obtaining an appendectomy or tonsillectomy. It is inconceivable. There is no passion about it, and there is no legislation about it.
However, it is conceivable that at some time, were this to be a devolved subject, the law in Scotland and the law in England and Wales might get out of step. It could happen either way, but that is irrelevant. What would happen is that Scotland or England would become an abortion haven. My objection is exactly the same as my objection to the type of proposition that we shall

debate later this evening on an SNP amendment concerning finance. One cannot envisage a situation in which England or Scotland becomes a tax haven for the residents of the other. Equally, one cannot envisage a situation in which either country becomes an abortion haven for the residents of the other.
The case on family planning is perhaps less strong, but we do not want to get into the situation that so long obtained between Northern and Southern Ireland. We would not have customs posts, at least as long as we kept the SNP out of power in Scotland, but it would be absurd if people were crossing the border, one way or the other, for family planning advice or to obtain contraceptives.
I am not notorious for being opposed to the Government on the Bill, not least because I largely devised the White Paper that lies behind it. Therefore, it is unlikely that I would oppose the Government on many issues. However, I very much hope that Amendment No. 545 will be carried, because it is one of the more sensible and more important amendments.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. I thought he shared my view that we should not accept the amendment. I am not in favour of the present type of Assembly, but if we are to have an Assembly it is essential that the health services are devolved to it for consideration and responsibility.
We in Scotland are justly proud of our medical services, of the whole history of medicine in Scotland, its independence and its leadership throughout the world in terms of services, skill and practice. Therefore, it is right that we should not be afraid that we should reduce the standards of the medical services in general if the Assembly is set up, approved by a referendum, and becomes responsible for the health services.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and I were on the Front Benches opposite each other during the passage of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972. It was as harmonious a passage of legislation in this House as I can recall, particularly in a Scottish Committee. This was because, basically, it was a non-partisan framework of legislation, supported by the


major parties. It was a constructive measure. It set up the single-tier authority which has proved so practical as compared with the two-tier system for the National Health Service in England, which has attracted criticism. The legislation was set forth on as reasonable a basis as one could wish.
The health services in Scotland are, of course, short of money, but bearing in mind the restrictions of the past three or four years, since the Act came into force, the authorities have done a remarkably good job, not only in the setting up of the area health boards, and in everything flowing from that, but in now establishing local health councils. It seems to be inconceivable that the right to look after the health services in Scotland should be exempted from devolution to the Assembly and operated from the United Kingdom Parliament.
Honourable Members have rightly touched on the co-ordination of the health services in Scotland with those in England and Wales. I am sure that that co-ordination would continue to be first-class. Nowhere is such co-ordination more important than in my area, since some of its medical services are supervised from Cumberland and Carlisle. There is there a perfectly satisfactory relationship, which has gone on for many generations, and there is no reason why it should not continue in the future.
I want to emphasise the exceptional standards of the services in Scotland. We have particularly Scottish services such as the Mental Health Commission, which has been an outstanding success over a long period. I cannot conceive that we should lose control of it from within Scotland. In the same way, we have our own Scottish ambulance service, which works very effectively. It has always been under Scottish control. It has never been a United Kingdom operation.
If we are to have a devolved Assembly, that is where the continuation of responsibility for these services must lie. The same is true of the pharmaceutical and dental services. They are Scottish services, and I am proud that they have been so successful for many generations and under successive Governments. We must, though, watch the position of the university medical schools. The universities

may be a United Kingdom responsibility, but the health services in Scotland will be locally controlled by the Assembly. If this is the set-up that we are to have I do not see why there should be any difficulty over the medical schools continuing their extremely close affiliation with the teaching hospitals. We should note that we must not let any difficulty arise.
There is a broader issue here. I have always felt that social work should be a Home and Health Department responsibility rather than a responsibility of the Education Department. In local terms, I felt that social work should be a district responsibility rather than a regional one under the education services. I never got much help on that from the Scottish Office.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Nor did I.

Mr. Monro: I am glad to know that I have not been batting alone. I felt that all social work and health and housing matters should be a district responsibility and social work in the Home and Health Department of the Scottish Office, entirely devolved from Scottish education. This is not in direct conflict with anything in the Bill. It is a desirable change which I hope we shall see in the near future. There must be close co-operation between the agencies dealing with health, housing and social work.
I come now to the amendment relating to family planning. The family planning issue, and such things as vasectomy, was in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972. These matters are, rightly, to be controlled by the Assembly. The only contentious issue relates to abortion. Here we are treading on difficult ground. All hon. Members who have spoken have rightly said that there must not be any significant difference between the interpretation of the abortion legislation in England and in Scotland. There must not be any kind of haven created. This problem arose on divorce and was eventually ended when the two countries adopted roughly the same position, although there was a three-year interval before that took place.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: It was 10 years.

Mr. Monro: It seemed to be a shorter period of time, but I know that the hon.


Gentleman was closely involved in hurrying along what was eventually decided in Scotland. No one has said where he believes the haven might be, in Scotland or England. Harking back to the original abortion legislation, my recollection was that it was felt that there would be a tendency for there to be more resistance in Scotland to making abortion easier than would be the case in England. There were more Members of Parliament from Scotland resisting the social clauses in the abortion legislation than there were English Members. I doubt whether the situation would arise when abortions would be easier to obtain in Scotland than in England. We must make certain that this legislation is operated on a United Kingdom basis. The Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament must keep in close touch.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that historically the position is that the law relating to abortion in Scotland meant that abortion was easier to obtain there than in England? Therefore, when people say that they do not know where the haven would be they are being strictly accurate in a historical sense. Any views held at the moment may be quite temporary. We have to bear that in mind, too.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Monro: I appreciate that the law was not interpreted differently, but geographically it depended very much upon where one was. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will say, that city had an enlightened attitude that was not duplicated in Glasgow.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I was not going to make a point. Prior to 1967 it was a question of the interpretation of the Act. It was not a question of having a clear-cut statute. At the moment, there is nothing to prevent someone from Scotland coming to England to receive treatment of a specialist nature that is available in England but not in Scotland, but if there is a legislative difference which makes it much more difficult to get an abortion in Scotland than in England it must be much more difficult for health authorities in England to deal with that kind of problem

because those concerned are seeking to evade a statute.

Mr. Monro: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He was closely involved with and is knowledgeable about the situation in Aberdeen. As those hon. Members who were here when the Abortion Bill was being considered know, I was reluctant—and I still am—to accept the social clauses, but I always accepted the medical reasons for abortion. One does not want to get involved in the details of the Act as it might affect England or Scotland, but we must continue on parallel lines in interpreting legislation and not deviate from the present position.
I shall resist the amendment because if, as I reluctantly fear, there is to be an Assembly, it is essential that the Health Service in Scotland is the responsibility of the Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell: Until recently, most of the medical profession in Scotland comfortably and safely assumed that devolution would never get off the ground and therefore they need not bother themselves too much about it. Like their English colleagues, their complaints have become more vocal over the past decade concerning matters that are common to the profession on both sides of the border. Now that they have come to know more about things, they are concerned about how they will be affected.
That is the sorry story of the Bill. As soon as people know what affects them, they become less than enchanted. As examples of that we have the forestry people, people from the inland waterways, the Law Society and chambers of commerce writing to complain, and the same is true of other groups, including doctors.
Scottish junior doctors working, in hospitals sometimes complain that they tend to earn less than their English colleagues. This results from better staffing levels in Scotland. Although junior doctors there might earn roughly £320 a year less than their English equivalents, they can console themselves with the fact that, on average, their working week is about seven hours shorter because of better staffing. However, that has not prevented nationalist politicians from exploiting the pay differential.
Now that the Scottish Assembly has become a real possibility, doctors in Scotland are proving to be as hostile as many other groups. Doctors, like some of the more perceptive teachers, are worried that their salaries might suffer, but what worries them even more—and this is very much the subject of the amendment—is the possibility of the Assembly setting up a health committee which, in spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) might say, will insist on taking over the responsibilities—or some of them—of the regional hospital boards and interfering to an unacceptable extent, to the disadvantage of the doctors and their patients.
I am as keen on democratic control as anyone else. But let us face the fact that the regional hospital boards system, with its mixture of elected members from local authorities and medical expertise, is working very well. Ministers have time and again rebuked me for suggesting that the Assembly will be a super local government. They say "No". They say that local government will continue to carry out local government functions. The Minister will, of course, say that the regional hospital boards will continue to carry out their functions. I do not doubt that he will be sincere in saying that, but I believe that the Assembly health committee will find itself extremely short of things to do.
We shall have probably 150 full-time Assemblymen. What on earth will they do with regard to health unless meddle with the work of the regional hospital boards? They cannot be passing laws the whole time. One cannot be chopping and changing and for ever discussing licensing and other such things. In fact, if they are to be part of a legislative assembly, as the Government would have us believe, either they will be seriously unemployed or they will meddle. It is one thing or the other.
The truth is that as medicine becomes increasingly specialised, co-operation between hospitals and research centres un and down the country becomes much more essential. Any disruption of the present system could be detrimental to the workings of the NHS. To take two examples, hepatitis and tropical disease patients from the North of England are normally treated in Edinburgh while

many of those from the Lothian area and the Borders go to Newcastle should they need renal transplants. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) knows that there is a considerable connection between Newcastle and Scottish medicine and, equally, between the North of England and the distinguished specialised services in Edinburgh.
I am told by my constituent, the distinguished neuro-surgeon, Dr. Clifford Mawdsley, that still more serious would be the disruption and fragmentation of research, particularly in the highly sophisticated and expensive frontiers of medicine. This is a man who speaks with full authority although, incidentally, he speaks from Labour Party platforms during election times. I make that point because some of my colleagues think that doctors are simply some kind of Tory organisation, which is not quite true.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Not those who are married to them.

Mr. Dalyell: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is no good dismissing the doctors as some kind of anti-Assembly reaction organisation. I am talking about doctors who have supported us, and whose considerable professional opinion is that this is damaging with regard to a number of their professional concerns.
The Scottish Health Service compares favourably in terms of staffing and provision with that of many regions in England. Scottish health activities are largely centred in the concentrations of population in which the four medical schools play an important rôle in determining the pattern and quality of health care. Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen train graduates whose numbers perhaps far exceed the medical services in Scotland.
The Royal College of Physicians pointed out in an official submission to the government in January 1976 that any change in the Scottish Health Service which could give rise to the production of what is called "peculiarly Scottish doctors" would operate to the disadvantage of Scottish medicine. The college's concern was that it was important to maintain standards which would ensure that the health services in Scotland were no less efficient, no less well financed


And no more encumbered with administrative bureaucracy than other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: Is not my hon. Friend basing his argument on an independent Scotland rather than devolved powers to Scotland?

Mr. Dalyell: I am basing it rather carefully on a devolved Scotland, because what we are talking about is a separate system of medicine. This is the whole argument. The doctors expressed concern at the proposal of a health committee of a Scottish Assembly the members of which will offer suggestions to oversee the work of the Executive department and when elected along political lines will advise the Assembly on legislating for and financing the Health Service in Scotland with a wide remit to cover policy on such matters as family planning, transplant surgery, abortion, private practice and the control of nursing homes.
Since this committee would have responsibility for health boards and other nominated bodies, the physicians say that the effects of such changes would be to introduce an additional politically biased tier into the administrative structure of the Scottish health services. They say that it is
not apparent how such can do other than detract from their efficiency especially when they have yet to settle, following the major reorganisation of 1974.
Having had in this decade one major reorganisation, Heaven help us if we have to undergo another. Since then the new health boards have been formulating their policies to suit best the composite health needs of their areas and the requirements of the four Scottish medical schools in collaboration with the health Department, and in a pattern correlated with that of the United Kingdom National Health Service. The superimposition of a policy-making body whose aim will be to promote Scottish as distinct from United Kingdom interests must surely complicate many administrative considerations, and the uncertainty of added directives to ensure purely Scottish aspects of health care may well result in the Scottish people receiving a less efficient system than they presently enjoy.
That is the view of the college. In conversation by telephone in Aberdeen Mr. Kyle, who represents the Scottish section of the BMA and is probably well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, authorised me to say that his body was collectively concerned about another layer of interference. The College of Physicians express concern that the conditions of service in Scotland could conceivably become different from those operating elsewhere in the United Kingdom. For example, say the physicians, if family planning, transplant surgery or private practice, most of which are potentially emotive issues of political confrontation, were to be the subject of alteration of policy by the Assembly, a situation could arise in which the pattern of health care for 5 million Scots might differ radically from that for the remainder of the United Kingdom.
That is precisely the situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) and others have been concerned about, whether it operates in the direction that she wants, or in the direction that others want. It is no more satisfactory one way or the other. They go on to say:
The conditions of service in Scotland could thus be materially changed, and could prove less attractive to the quality of professional staffing which the Scottish health services have long enjoyed.
What many doctors realise is that in order to justify themselves, and their existence in a Scottish Assembly, members of the Royal High School will try to change conditions for the sake of change. This, after all, is what some of them regard as being their raison d'être, the idea of a changing State. They will not be able to resist the temptation to meddle.

Sir David Renton: In addition to that, will there not be another temptation, and that is to become ultra-Scottish, disregarding all other considerations?

Mr. Dalyell: The right. hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a member of the Kilbrandon Commission, knows that one of my many objections to this proposal is that it plays into the hands, against the wishes of my hon. and right hon. Friends, of the Scottish National Party in creating this feeling of Englishness. Anything


along these lines creates this feeling which goes down the road that the SNP wants to travel. This is a difference of judgment between hon. Members who think, as I do, and some Members of the Government Front Bench. Therefore, I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). This whole system of creating this kind of institution just pushes us along a road down which some of us are determined not to go. The British Medical Association registered its protest.
9.15 p.m.
I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) has joined us. He will remember the statement made in January last by the British Medical Association, which he adorns. On 17th January 1977 the British Medical Association made clear its views. I quote from The Scotsman:
Devolution of health matters to a Scottish Assembly would add to political involvement in the provision of health care. In these more turbulent circumstances, the service and the patient would require additional protection from decision making on political grounds. This problem can best be dealt with by the formation of a Scottish Health Services Board. The council say: 'The introduction of a Scottish Health Services Board with clearly identifiable areas where the Minister can overrule the board and in a form in which the Scottish Health Services Board would be permitted to publish, would provide the buffer which the profession see as in the best interests of patient care.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There is a lot of merit in what my hon. Friend has said, but I should like to put this question to him. Why is it that the medical profession, of all the professions in this country, is so scared of "political" interference? My view has always been that we as politicians, as Members of Parliament, give to the medical profession far too much status and symbolism of status, and that we are frightened to discuss aspects of medical care. If the Assembly were to come into operation and to give this House of Commons a lead in this respect, might not that be a bonus which we did not expect?

Mr. Dalyell: I only put it forward as part of the answer. At this moment the medical profession in Scotland is concerned because it sees that decisions in certain areas, rightly or wrongly, will

be in favour of housing, and this means taking resources away from other areas, be it education or health. Rightly or wrongly, this is its fear. But, of course, there is an additional proposition in this whole argument—and here I would hope to have the sympathy of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North. It is not only a question of marginally shifting resources in Scotland from health to housing, as an Assembly would be entitled to do. The medical profession knows—as some of the rest of us suspect—that when it comes to public expenditure the total cake will be less than it has been.
Yesterday I produced figures at some length of the total identifiable public expenditure in Scotland, which was substantially higher than the figure for England. I think it was roughly 22 per cent. higher. I gave all the figures, and I will not repeat them. We are probably on common ground when we say that, in the circumstances of an Assembly, and given the nature of the devolutionary juggernaut, as soon as it has established a Scottish Consolidated Fund, there will be hawk-like English Members of Parliament who will make sure—as they never did before when the United Kingdom was clearly a unity—that the Scots get neither more nor less than our share. Once there is that kind of scrutiny, my hon. Friend and I know very well that the total of cake will be substantially reduced. I am sure that the doctors know and understand this very clearly.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: My hon. Friend will be aware of the acute political anxieties and stresses caused within England and Wales by the redistribution of resources within the health services which are administered by the Ministry responsible for those services in England and Wales. Those stresses have not been felt in Scotland, nor has any question of bringing the Scottish share of the health cake into distribution ever been entered into, because there is at the present time a separate Ministry. But once English Members are invited to vote on the share of the cake, through the block grant going to Scottish health, could they ignore the fact that that share is higher than many of their own health regions will get, particularly at a time of political stress and anxiety over that share?

Mr. Dalyell: They will not be allowed to ignore it by their constituents. One result is that English Members of Parliament will become far more inquisitive than ever before about public spending in Scotland. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West is attending our debates. In future, I would not be surprised if she looks rather carefully at what the Scots are receiving per head in public expenditure. When we see that the Scots are receiving £850 and those in Coventry £680 per head, it will be unlike my hon. Friend not to begin asking questions.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I must come to the defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise).

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Our hon. Friend can speak for herself.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I know she can speak for herself, but she might find it a little embarrassing to put this point. Good Socialist that she is, I do not believe there is one Socialist who would argue that Scottish money should be cut off, but I am sure she would argue that the amount of the cake allocated to Coventry should be increased.

Mr. Dalyell: I wish my hon. Friend good luck when she makes that application to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These pressures will arise, and my hon. Friend will be told by her local Labour Party "If you do not ask these questions, you will be failing in your duty as an English Member of Parliament."

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sorry to intervene yet again, but my hon. Friend must not fall into the trap of describing my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West as an English Member of Parliament, or anybody else as a Scottish Member of Parliament. We Labour Members of Parliament are dedicated to the Socialist concept. We do not associate ourselves with the idea of English or Scottish Members as such. I do not regard my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West as an English Member of Parliament, and I hope that she does not regard me as a Scottish Member.

Mr. Dalyell: I must not fall into that trap or into the other trap of speaking for too long.
I return to the subject of the BMA. I have an official statement by Mr. Kyle, speaking on behalf of Dr. Faulkner and other members of the BMA, which reads as follows:
Scottish doctors do not think the Bill will bring any improvement to the health care of the people of Scotland. Over the years the profession has had an amicable working relationship with the Scottish Home and Health Department and there does not appear to be any need for further devolution on health matters. Moreover, the intervention of a Scottish Assembly could well delay progress in the health field.… We have now discussed the Scotland Bill. An amendment has been tabled with a view to maintaining the status quo regarding the present situation of determining terms and conditions of service for doctors on a United Kingdom basis.
Dr. Kyle is then reported as saying that
the doctors would watch the progress of the Bill carefully. It was hoped another amendment would be tabled which would have the effect that matters of health—prevention, treatment and alleviation of disease or illness, including injury, disability and mental disorder, family planning and abortion—would continue to be funded as at present on a United Kingdom basis.
I wish that in the Christmas Recess my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland had had another meeting with Mr. Kyle and his colleagues. I know that my hon. Friend holds many meetings and works very hard, but I believe that he was a little remiss in not holding such a meeting. I received a recent letter from the Minister and he did not mention the fact that the doctors have asked for a current meeting with him. I do not have a copy of that letter with me at present because I did not know that the debate would come up so soon, but the general point was made that the doctors, including Mr. Kyle, had had meetings with my hon. Friend 18 months ago. The attitude taken is that those meetings still hold good.
As we all come to know more about the proposals, the situation appears to become a little different as these matters appear in our in-trays. When these were first put forward as vague proposals, many of us felt that it would be a good thing for us to have a greater say in our own affairs. That is all very well as a general proposition, but when we get down to the nitty gritty of the actual situation, I believe that it behoves the Government, their Ministers and every one of us to consult once again the interest groups, whatever those groups may have said in an ever-receding past.

Sir David Renton: I listened with great interest and with some admiration to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The hon. Gentleman has made many valuable speeches in debates on the Bill, but the one that he has just made was, from a purely practical point of view, one of the most telling that we have heard. The Government should take serious note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
It has been said that there is already a separate Scottish Health Service, and a pretty satisfactory one. The service comes under the Secretary of State. I am the first English Member to be speaking in the debate on this amendment. Perhaps a minor reason or entitlement for my doing so is that I am the son of a Scottish doctor — a Scotsman who obtained his academic qualification at a Scottish university and his clinical training at a London hospital. My father practised in England.
In England we are worried about our Health Service. I confess that I voted for the 1972 Act that brought about the reorganisation of the National Health Service. However, I have been worried by the way in which it has worked out. The service has been kept very short of funds even under the present Government, who have been fairly free with public expenditure. Under our present set-up, where we have a United Kingdom Government and a United Kingdom Parliament, even though the Health Services are separate there is a degree of co-ordination, co-operation and liaison. There is not uniformity, but enough common thought is given to the common problems to make sense and to prevent the sort of dangers that have been mentioned by my hon. Friends with such clarity when moving the respective amendments. It would be dangerous and a pity if we abandoned that system.
If, as proposed in the Bill, the Scottish Health Service were hived off to the Scottish Assembly as a devolved subject, the Assembly could go its own sweet way, as the hon. Member for West Lothian so eloquently pointed out. I get on very well with the hon. Members who occupy the SNP Bench, but if by some electoral freak they found themselves with a majority of seats in the Assembly, even though they had not a majority of votes in Scotland, I think that they would be competing

with all and sundry to try to make everything in Scotland far more Scottish than it needs to be. Let me say straight away that I am proud of my Scottish blood. However, inward-looking nationalism could do immense damage to the Scottish Health Service. The Scottish section of the British Medical Association has naturally and properly pointed out its fears.
There are important health matters that should continue to be dealt with on a broadly United Kingdom basis even though the two Health Services are separate. Reference has been made to standards of health care and entitlements to benefit. Notwithstanding all the confusion of the Bill, I hope that those entitlements will remain the same, but I am not convinced that they will. There would be opportunities for making variations within the aegis of the devolved Health Service.
9.30 p.m.
The negotiations on doctors' remuneration and conditions of service are carried out on a United Kingdom basis now. It would be a great pity if there were a parting of the ways in that respect.
The next question concerns the control of medical training and the standards of qualification required of doctors. Surely it is better that we should take no risk in such matters. We maintain very high standards, and Europe and, indeed, the world know that we do. It would be a pity if there were any variation from those high standards.

Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty is that Scotland over-produces medical graduates, and that is part of the United Kingdom pattern. This system would upset the United Kingdom pattern.

Sir D. Renton: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I can give first-hand evidence from my father. He was one of the many more doctors than were needed in Scotland, or, at any rate, he thought that it would be interesting, adventurous and perhaps profitable to go to England to try his skill. That he did. He had very high qualifications, and he used them in England.
Scotland has always kept sufficient doctors, but this movement away has been of benefit to Scotland because there have not always been opportunities for the high quality of professional people that:


that country produces. England, as the hon. Member for West Lothian pointed out, has benefited, as have the Commonwealth and many other parts of the world, from the excellence of Scottish medicine and the training provided by Scottish universities and hospitals. Much of the great pioneering work in medicine, and even more in surgery, has been done by Scotsmen who did not always remain at home.
I turn now to family planning and abortion. The points have been so well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) that I need only underline them.
As some hon. Members know, I have a great interest in this subject. I have always admired the way in which the city of Aberdeen, on the advice of its former chief medical officer, undertook great pioneering work in family planning. As long as we keep the law and the methods broadly in line, there is scope for local initiative on family planning. But we must ensure that the law and the methods do keep broadly in line. The best way of ensuring that is to leave with the Secetary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Social Services their present responsibilities which, after all, are co-ordinated here at Cabinet level and, in respect of law-making, by legislation in the House of Commons.
The question of abortion has been lightly touched upon by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) who, while pointing out the dangers, said that we did not want an abortion haven. This country did become an abortion haven for Continentals after the passing of the Abortion Act 1967. A very sorry sight was presented when that occurred. But the situation has settled down now and the question of abortion in Scotland is not a matter that gives rise to any kind of anxiety at present. Let us keep it that way.
This is the kind of matter in which, if one makes changes, one always runs risks. These matters are very delicate and difficult to organise from the practical point of view. They are matters in which legislation is not only controversial and cuts across party lines, but in which there are difficulties of definition and practical application.

Mrs. Wise: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, these matters of family planning and abortion are very delicate. They also involve deep religious and moral feelings, and feelings about freedom. To devolve these decisions to smaller units of population could be very divisive within those smaller units, and very destructive. This would not be helpful even to those who are keen on Scottish nationalism or any other form of nationalism. We must remember that these are matters which arouse strong religious and moral passions.

Sir D. Renton: I never thought that I would ever be so grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) for an intervention in a speech of mine. I disagree with her on so many things, but on this matter I am exceedingly grateful for the force and clarity with which she has underlined the point that I was making much less adequately.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman expresses complete agreement with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) will he say whether there is any evidence to suggest that the fact that the Danes, the Norwegians or the Dutch, with their smaller populations, have control of abortion has proved in any way divisive in those countries?

Sir D. Renton: The hon. Member is rather naughtily putting words into my mouth that I have not in any way expressed. I think that we have this business of abortion across the border just about right at present, so let us leave it that way—[interruption.] The silly laughter that so often emanates from the charming people on the Scottish National Party Bench does not help our discussions in any way. I do not think that the Scottish nationalists are really interested in the Bill. They are not prepared to face the realities of the administrative, financial and functional problems arising here.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Why, in the earlier part of his speech, did the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) find it so difficult to consider the possibility of the party that I represent ending up with a considerable number of votes in Scotland, fairly and


squarely under any system of election? Does he not think that there is something illogical in the history of his own party's case in relation to Scottish votes over the past few years?

Sir D. Renton: I dare not answer that intervention, because it is totally irrelevant to the Health Service. It is nothing whatever to do with what I have been saying—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The right hon. and learned Member said it earlier in his speech.

Sir D. Renton: I shall try to revert to the main theme of my speech. I am not opposed to change. Goodness knows, I have proposed many changes in the House and we must always keep an open mind about change. However, when making such a fundamental change as this, let us make sure that it is necessary and wise, and let us not ignore the vivid warnings from hon. Members on both sides of the House. If we make the change in the face of these warnings and all the practical difficulties, it will be a great disservice to the Scottish people.

Mr. Gourlay: I have not been surprised by the last two speeches, since both speakers are bitter opponents of the principle of devolution and are only too ready to call in aid any organisation or limited idea which might help in their arguments against devolution. However, I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) should call in aid the British Medical Association which fought so bitterly against the introduction of the National Health Service and which compelled the then Labour Government and the Minister of Health, Nye Bevan, to agree to private beds in hospitals as a condition to the introduction of such a service. I am surprised that my hon. Friend should call in aid the BMA's help in trying to delete certain devolved powers.
The majority of professional associations and industrialists in Scotland are trying to undermine the principles of the Bill because, like many other Scots, including myself, they are afraid of complete independence. However, I support the principles in the Bill. The Health Service in Scotland is different from that

in England. We have our own NHS Act. I believe that it is right to devolve control of our service from the Secretary of State to an elected Assembly. To the last two speakers I say "Oh ye of little faith in democracy". We are taking powers from the Secretary of State and passing them to an elected Assembly of Scotsmen who have a record second to none in producing the finest surgeons and physicians in Britain, many of whom have been exported to England and the rest of the Commonwealth. Even if we had the disaster of a majority of SNP members in the Assembly, I do not believe that they would try to reduce the standards in the medical departments of our universities.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman is the first supporter of the Bill to speak on the amendment, will he say what benefit devolution will have in relation to the Health Service in Scotland? He talked about democratic control, but what will a Scottish Assemblyman be able to do about the Health Service which the hon. Gentleman, as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, is not able to do? Scottish health laws come before this House and, as an hon. Member, he is entitled to ask questions about the NHS in Scotland in exactly the same way as an Assemblyman would be able to do.

Mr. Gourlay: That is a simple intervention to answer. We have the right to question Scottish Ministers but we do not have the right or the time to go into a detailed investigation of the Health Service. That is the whole purpose of devolution. That is what the hon. Gentleman is opposed to. He is not prepared to give his Scottish colleagues and the people of Scotland the right to determine for themselves what they want to do in the Health Service. He wants it done here, where there is a limit on time. It is because of the limitation on time that in some cases we have not been able to correct faults in the reorganisation of the Health Service in Scotland.
9.45 p.m.
For example, many of the people who are members of area health boards in Scotland are now very dissatisfied with the present set-up, because in setting up the new area health boards, executive groups made up of the principal officers of the area have been set up. They are putting


forward propositions to the health boards merely for rubber stamping. In some cases, when members of these boards have challenged the reasons for the decisions of an executive group, they have been politely told "We are in a better position to know than you, as lay members, what is good for the Health Service in this area".
Therefore, from that point of view alone, there are many reasons why an elected Scottish Assembly, particularly if it is run on the committee system, as proposed, could devote a great deal more time to finding out what is wrong and what improvements can be introduced into the Health Service in Scotland. That is only one aspect.
I am rather afraid that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has not consulted as widely as he might have done some of the members of the health board in Fife and in other areas to discover whether they are satisfied with the present system. As a former member of a board of management, and having consulted some present members of the area health board who were also members of the previous boards of management, I know that they, too, find that they are not able to become involved in as much detail as they were previously, and the policy is being dictated very largely by the executive groups. In itself, that is a very good reason why this power should be devolved to a Scottish Assembly.
On the second amendment, which deals with family planning and abortion only, irrespective of which views one may hold on most of the aspects, I do not think that there is any danger in those two items being put under the control of the Assembly. I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would agree that we in Scotland have always regarded ourselves as being much more enlightened than many of our English counterparts. Therefore, I think that a Scottish Assembly would see that these two items were administered in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people of Scotland.
After all, the Assembly will have 150 Members. It will be widely representative, even more representative than we 71 Scottish Members of Parliament can be at Westminster, and it will have much

more time to devote to these particular aspects. Therefore, I am not in the least afraid. I have a much greater faith in the Scottish people determining in an Assembly that which is better for them than in that being done by the 635 Members of Parliament at Westminster.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who has now left the Chamber, said that he was afraid that the service would become far more Scottish than it would need to be. I do not know what he meant by that, because in all instances the Scots themselves want to have the best possible service that they can get for the money that is being paid. Whether that makes it more Scottish, more English or more Catholic, I do not know, but at least it is what the Scots want. Therefore, it is right that they should have it.
The question of control over medical training and standards is one of the reasons why the BMA does not want to see a devolvement of control of the Health Service. However, again, that is a worry that the BMA may have but I cannot see any valid reason for that worry.

Mr. Dalyell: For reasons of time, I concentrated on the BMA, but my hon. Friend will accept that some trade union members, such as Jim Strachan, and John Lambie of NUPE, are very concerned for similar reasons.

Mr. Gourlay: I accept what my hon. Friend says about certain trade union leaders, but they are not the holders of all the wisdom in the United Kingdom. Many of us who have discussed these matters over many years are convinced that there is nothing in the powers that are to be devolved to the Assembly that will do anything detrimental to the National Health Service in Scotland, to medical training, or to anything else. I fully support the Bill as it stands and I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I agree with practically all the remarks made by the hon. Member for Kirkaldy (Mr. Gourlay), with the possible exception of when he referred to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) as a beacon of progressive thinking in Scotland. The hon. Member for Kirkaldy stumbled there. Apart from that I agree with him.
The hon. Member said that the nub of devolution is discretion and choice and that that is why we have engaged in this exercise. At the beginning of the debate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) quoted from remarks made by the BMA. Subsequently the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) expressed the BMA's fear that an Assembly might spend more money on housing and education than on health. That is no reason for not devolving that power. It is an expression of doubt of which political aspect might dominate a devolved Assembly. It is not a reason in itself.
Medicine is full of choice as it is. We have a whole range of difficult choices to make and it is increasingly difficult for hon. Members, since we are the holders of the purse strings, to make the right choice between the professional advice that Governments are given. That advice is often difficult to understand for the non-professional. It is often difficult to determine the right priority, particularly in the treatment of rare diseases. One cannot guarantee that the United Kingdom choice will be better than a Scottish choice nor can one guarantee that a Scottish choice will be better than a United Kingdom choice. That argument is not significant.
If one accepts the principle of devolution, one accepts that it may produce a greater degree of sensitivity, but one does not know for certain that it will. One accepts that an Assembly will have a greater sensitivity to the problems, a greater degree of knowledge and an equivalent degree of responsibility in the exercise of the job that has to be done.
The hon. Member for West Lothian produced a formidable array of bogies. I am sorry that he has temporarily left the Chamber. One of the arguments that he advocated on behalf of the BMA, with which he appeared to be in accord, was that the Assembly might establish a health council. The hon. Member said that such a health council might—and this is all supposition and doubt—interfere with the regional hospital boards "to the disadvantage of the doctors and their patients."
Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a Government of any political complexion would, as a matter

of determined policy, approach the Health Service with the objective of acting to the disadvantage of the doctors and their patients, the patients being the commonality of all the population? I appreciate that the Assembly is as likely to make mistakes as this place is, but that it should pursue a conscious policy of lowering standards is difficult to contemplate as a serious argument.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian, expressed his doubts and reservations, which I share, about the repeated view of the British Medical Association that "decisions on political grounds" are terrible, that they are interference and a danger. That is not a view that I hold. There is a profound and wholly justified public interest in these matters.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for West Lothian to say of the BMA that "rightly or wrongly, it fears" that this that and the next thing will happen. We cannot legislate on the basis that somebody or other is rightly or wrongly afraid of something. That is not a basis on which one can make any improvement.
Therefore, I cannot accept the first amendment. It is wholly contrary to the concept of devolution and its principle as embodied in the Bill.
The second amendment is perhaps more difficult. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North felt that what he described as broad social matters should be treated in an equivalent way throughout the United Kingdom. He said that with reference to the amendment on family planning and abortion. One of the mistakes made by the hon. Member for West Lothian is to confuse assertion with logical demonstration and proof. Every day he treats us to assertions clad in the guise of logical argument. Here I admit before I start that probably I, too, am guilty of assertion when I say that in the matter of family planning and abortion it is a question of the acceptance of a community's right to determine matters in its own way. That is what devolution is primarily about—the Assembly's capacity to create within Scotland a domestic environment in tune with what the community in Scotland thinks. It is more a question of that than of the pros and cons and rights and wrongs.
Let me take family planning first, as it is perhaps the easier of the two. One does not want to spend a great deal of time on the subject. We have heard of the smuggling of contraceptives in Ireland. One cannot argue that that is immensely disruptive of the commonweal. One may take the view that it is wrong that contraceptives are not freely available in Eire. One may take the view that it is right. But it cannot be argued that the carrying of contraceptives across the border in brown paper packages has a serious effect on the balance of the community one way or the other. I do not think that that is a matter which is tremendously serious—at least with regard to disruption.

10.0 p.m.

Mrs. Wise: Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot be serious. This is the kind of thing which has a very great effect on the relationships and fears of the various communities in Ireland. It goes to the heart of the problems in Ireland.

Mr. Johnston: I am not denying that. I was trying to avoid expressing my own opinion on the matter. The hon. Lady may be assured of that. What I am arguing is that in this matter the idea that a different policy would be pursued in Scotland, which is what people are worried about, which would have a serious and disruptive effect on the Health Service throughout the United Kingdom, does not stand up. One might disapprove of it, and perhaps rightly disapprove of it, but that is a different question. It would not result in the problems which abortion undoubtedly might result in.
The cases with abortion is much more sensitive, important and difficult. I do not think it can be refuted that what the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) described as the possibility of abortion havens could, in certain circumstances, happen. I do not think that one can deny that, irrespective of whether it would happen in Scotland or in England. It could happen if different policies were adopted because of public pressure or democratic decision in either place. The question is what one should do about this.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am not as much concerned as is my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) about abortion havens. I am concerned about

the possibility that the legislation would get out of kilter, in that in one part of the kingdom legislation on abortion might be stiffer than in other parts. Whereas at the moment it is possible for people to obtain an abortion in England or Scotland, depending on administrative arrangements, it would be much more difficult if legislation in one part of the country were stiffer. How could one then argue that one was making a freely-available service?

Mr. Johnston: I do not deny that the situation is difficult, but I fall back in the end on the question of the approach to the principle of devolution. I think that democratic decisions can be unfortunate and inconvenient and, in some cases, immoral. I am not here specifying a view on abortion, but it is possible for a group of people to take a decision that is wrong. But that can apply to a large community as well as to a small one.
We see this, for example, in South Africa. In South Africa, there is the operation of democracy for the 3 million white people who are taking a series of immoral and wrong decisions. But they are still democratic decisions in the strict sense of the word. But I think that, in the end, the strength and durability of democracy evolve towards general standards such as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North commented on in relation to the Health Service in general and the attitude towards it now compared with the attitude in the late 1940s. That attitude has changed fundamentally and, I think, lastingly. It is not to be seriously contemplated that a different basis would now be introduced in Scotland as a consequence of devolution. Democracy has worked its way through to acceptance of a general standard for the Health Service.
I do not think that one can or should be afraid to risk the existence of differences, because, in the end, it is the suppression of differences which can be most damaging to democratic progress. It is not a matter that can be proved, that there is much likelihood of the two getting out of kilter, to use the expression of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North on the subject of family planning or abortion.
In a democratic community we ought to be able to contain a certain measure of difference and disparity. Once we


separate the two there may be a possibility that, until a certain moment when a general standard will be accepted, there will be a forward movement which may not proceed at quite the same pace. That must be recognised and accepted. It would not be a good thing, in working out a humane and democratic answer, if the majority of people in Scotland wished to restrict abortion or to increase the availability of abortion but the opposite policy was imposed by Westminster. I would be prepared to accept the risk of difference in pursuit of the principle of democratic devolution.

Mr. George Thompson: Following the speeches of the hon. Members for Kirkaldy (Mr. Gourlay) and Inverness (Mr. Johnston) I am tempted to take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), but to move in an opposite direction, by making a speech which would consist of a very loud "Hear, hear." There are one or two matters to which I ought to give my attention although I am as anxious as my hon. Friends to get on to the interesting amendments which are to follow.
The hon. Members for Inverness and The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) have emphasised that the point about devolution is that it is meant to give the Scottish people, through the Assembly, the chance of making choices in certain areas. One such area is health. We all know, from being alive, that the result of making choices is that there is always an element of risk. Things can go wrong, but, equally, they can go right. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) spoke about inward-looking nationalism, quite forgetting to advert to the fact that it is possible to have outward-looking nationalism. That is the sort of nationalism in which I am interested.
The right hon. and learned Member also referred to the training of doctors. How many times in the House of Commons have I pointed out that because Scottish doctors are trained in what are effectively general hospitals they have a much greater social commitment to the general community than have doctors trained in England? How often has the British Medical Association, even in Scotland, striven to move us in the direction of more private practice, not because

there was very much of it in Scotland but because the BMA dog in London was wagging the Scottish tail in the direction London wanted it to go.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman took the view that in certain areas the Scots must be kept under the tutelage of a nurse. That might be all right if we were under the tutelage of a nurse who was always of the character of Florence Nightingale. There is, however, always the possibility that we may be under the tutelage of a nurse something like Mrs. Gamp. What the Scottish people need to do is to get away from being nursed and to undertake their own responsibilities, making their own choices and facing the possibility that there may well be risks—but certain in the knowledge that they have within themselves the means to counteract those risks and, if they should eventuate, the power to take measures against them.
The hon. Member for West Lothian belongs to the group of Scots who are always afraid of change. They always take it that change must be for the worse and never for the better. This is sad, because it seems to be a characteristic of people who are old and done that they almost always look to the past and never to the future. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and his laughing hon. Friends, and those hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who think that that is funny, that they sit down and exercise their minds on the subject instead of merely indulging in laughter.

Mr. Dalyell: I was laughing because I thought that some of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench might wish that I were done.

Mr. Thompson: I am not in a position to make a prognosis on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State about the condition of his hon. Friend, either mentally or physically, but the House would be a poorer place if the hon. Gentleman were not here to admonish and encourage us as we go through the Bill.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin said that, because there might be different major medical problems in one country as opposed to the other, the two countries might make different choices and adopt different solutions. I think that that is true. Why should we worry if a Scottish


Assembly, in its wisdom, thinks that more money spent on housing would have a valuable effect in the medical field? We in Scotland are well aware that good housing helps the medical condition of our people. It will be for the Scottish Assembly to weigh up matters and come to decisions on them, and I do not fear that happening.
I think that differing situations in the two countries might lead to cross-fertilisation, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, and even to healthy emulation between the two countries. Medical learning is international and therefore I see no reason why these matters should not remain, as the Government intend, within the devolved field.
I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North should fear that a Scottish Assembly will reintroduce pay beds. That does not seem to be in accordance with what I know of the Scottish people or of the Scottish medical profession.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I said that I did not think it was likely that the Assembly would make that change, but that if it did one would have to accept it.

Mr. Thompson: I am grateful for that clarification.
The amendment is curious in that it lacks the imprimaturs of the Shadow spokesman on devolution and the Shadow spokesman on Scotland. It remains to be seen whether, when we come to the end of our debate, it is a lightweight amendment in terms of the signatories or a heavyweight amendment to propel its signatories into the Lobby, or even to propel the Tory Party en masse into the Lobby. No doubt the Division lists will show what happens.
It is clear to me that the Bill as it affects the Health Service is a logical development of what we already have in Scotland. We are to move from administrative devolution in certain health matters to the possibility of Scottish legislative devolution in health matters and responsibility for Scottish health will continue to lie in Scotland. It is merely a step forward, and again is not one to be feared.
The Scottish Health Service has excellent standards. All of us in Scotland

are proud of that excellence, and I for one do not believe that in these matters the Scottish Assembly will be more meddlesome, in a mischievous way, than is the House or the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Assembly is not to be meddlesome, what will it do? Spend its time on legislation? For example, what kind of legislation would the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues like to see the Assembly and its committee undertake?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Thompson: It would perhaps help the hon. Gentleman and avoid my getting into trouble by being out of order if I were to send him a copy of my party's health policy so that he can study it at leisure.
I do not accept as an absolute necessity that because we have a legislature it must legislate from New Year's Day to Hogmanay every year. If we have a health committee I do not accept that it need necessarily sit on every day from New Year's Day to Hogmanay churning out reports or advice. We could probably do with a reduction of these things rather than an increase.
The Scots, being parsimonious, will perhaps apply their parsimony even to a legislature and to oversight. What we are asking for the Scottish Assembly is not a series of privileges to be conveyed to it by the House but a set of responsibilities to be given to it by the House. We believe that as much should be devolved as can be devolved within the limits of what the Government are prepared to offer, unless we can persuade them to offer further things by our advocacy of further amendments, We want the Assembly to be responsible for all those matters that Conservative Members are seeking to persuade us to take out of the Bill.
I do not look upon the Assembly as anything but a staging post on the way to full Scottish self-government. By devolving to the Assembly responsibility for important sectors of Scottish life we shall be giving it, its officials and the people of Scotland valuable training against the day when we take over full control of all our affairs.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson), in an agreeable speech, said that we should not be scared of change. He chided the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and others for being scared of change.
In this schedule, which my hon. Friend is seeking to amend, there is a major change. It is a change in the structure of the Scottish Health Service and almost all of the health responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I accept that we should not be scared of change in itself, but we have had no justification for it so far. I hope that in his reply the Minister will give some idea of the benefits which he believes will accrue to the people of Scotland from this change.
It is a major change. Speaker after speaker, including the hon. Member for Galloway, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), have stressed that we have extremely good health services in Scotland administered from St. Andrew's House on the basis of laws largely determined by Scottish MPs. I hope that the Minister will give some indication of what benefits he believes will come from this legislation.
I hope the Minister will also give an indication about the views of those in the health services with regard to this change. The hon. Member for West Lothian and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) pointed out that the BMA was concerned about the change proposed. Many people who work in the health services and people who have representative bodies such as trade unions, trade associations or professional organisations are concerned. Can the Minister give an indication about the general views that have been expressed by the doctors, dentists, consultants, nurses and those engaged in other activities within the health services?
In addition, as this is the first of a number of proposals for devolution that we shall consider, perhaps the Minister will answer one or two specific questions? First, is the division of responsibility clear? Part I of the Schedule contains proposals with regard to health which should be transferred to the Assembly. In Part II we have those health responsibilities relating to the Secretary of State

for Scotland which are not to be devolved. These include:
Control of drugs, medicinal products, biological substances and food.
At present both devolved and non-devolved matters are handled administratively by the Scottish Home and Health Department. In this case, as in others to which we shall come where some of the Secretary of State's responsibilities will be devolved and others will not, there will be a division in the work of civil servants. Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that there is a clear division between devolved and non-devolved responsibilities?
Will guidance be given to those unfortunate civil servants who will go through this difficult time as to the priority they should give as between devolved and non-devolved responsibilities? For example, some of the work of the Scottish Home and Health Department will be devolved and some will remain with the Secretary of State. Suppose that a committee of the Assembly demands the attendance of the principal civil servant in the Department at the very time that the Secretary of State wants that civil servant to attend on him with advice, and where both the committee and the Secretary of State regard the matters as urgent. What advice will be given to senior civil servants who have responsibilities in both spheres about the priority they should accord to them?

Mr. Dalyell: Suppose that there was a Conservative Government in London and a Labour Administration at the Royal High School, and supose that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was the Scottish Prime Minister. Would it not be difficult for the same civil servants to give advice to the two parties on sensitive issues?

Mr. Taylor: Yes. Even though the Under-Secretary is an agreeable person, as I am, it is quite possible for there to be a dispute between us on an important issue of policy—for example, whether some aspect of health responsibility was devolved, or whether some proposed action of the Assembly would cause trouble for one of us. We should both be seeking advice from the same civil servants while holding conflcting views. What priority will the civil servants give?


The Under-Secretary may say that we should avoid the situation with good will and understanding, but there will be occasions when the civil servant will be asked for advice by the two sides.
We are considering devolving part of the health responsibilities. How is payment from the block grant devolved sums to be calculated when there is an addition to the complement of the staff in the Scottish Office and when only some responsibilities of the additional staff will be devolved? How do we work out the accounting procedures for the devolved and the non-devolved responsibilities respectively?

Mr. Dalyell: There is an added complication concerning accounting officers and the responsibilities in this very field of a Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General, who is responsible to the Public Accounts Committee of the House.

Mr. Taylor: There will be three days available on Report stage when we can discuss this and other matters, but it is a very important question. What is the accountancy procedure in relation to that part of the Civil Service which is looking after devolved civil servants? I hope that we may have advice on this.
There are a number of other issues arising out of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife. East. I hope that the Minister will give us guidance on these issues and also say whether there will be any change in the structure of pay negotiation.
Unfortunately, we were not able to discuss Clause 41, but that is only one of the many clauses which we have not been able to discuss. This was meant to give some kind of guidance as to how Schedule 8 would operate. It covers doctors, dentists, and so on. Will the Minister give us some indication whether the pay of doctors, dentists, consultants and nurses will be subject in all cases to the approval of the Secretary of State? Is any change envisaged in the pay structure and conditions of those involved in the health service?
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East was absolutely right in emphasising the real fear among those engaged in our excellent health service that the creation of a Scottish Assembly and the devolution

of the health services might result in separate standards. It would be very difficult indeed if taxpayers paying British taxes were to find that perhaps the level of service was different as between areas north and south of the border.
Will the Minister give us some indication whether there will be any change whatsoever in the present arrangements whereby people can get, without complication, health services both north and south of the border, and particularly hospital services? The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was right in saying that there is a movement of patients across the border. They are getting treatment in the hospitals which can give them the best possible service. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that there will be no change in this respect.
On the other hand, will the Minister say something about the financies involved? The Scottish Assembly will be working to a block budget, and this will be a limited amount. If the situation arises that a far larger number of English patients are being cured in Scottish hospitals than the number of Scottish patients being attended to in English hospitals, and a considerable amount of money is involved, will there be any change or alteration made in the financial arrangements? If so, who will pay?
Will the Minister tell us whether the clause as it stands, or Group 1, would enable a Scottish Assembly, if it so desired, to alter arrangements for pay beds and for Health Service charges? Could a Scottish Assembly, if it so wished under these devolved arrangements, introduce charges for beds or alterations in pay beds, or introduce Health Service charges under these arrangements? I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was absolutely right in saying that it is very difficult indeed to see why the administration of the health services should not be devolved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) mentioned the important question of abortion and put forward an extremely good argument on the need to maintain the present arrangements whereby the law on abortion was fixed on a United Kindom basis. I accept that there are arguments on both sides,


but I hope that the Minister will at least accept that my hon. Friend has made a very good point.
Is there a possibility of the law on abortion being different on each side of the border? This is probably the one area in which there is a greater chance of a change in the law than perhaps on any other issue. There have been two Bills, introduced to amend the abortion law, and they have been passed on Second Reading by a substantial majority of Members. For one reason or another, however, neither of them became law. No doubt the Leader of the House could give some indication of the background to this matter, but it would probably not be in order to discuss it. There have been two votes in the House of Commons in favour of changes in the abortion law, and therefore there is a real chance of a change taking place.
10.30 p.m.
I am sure that the Minister accepts that if there were a difference between the law on abortion in Scotland and that in England it could involve substantial problems for Scotland's health services. At one time thousands of foreign women, despite the long and expensive journey, wanted to come to the United Kingdom for abortions. That occurred because of the major difference between our abortion laws and those on the Continent. The Minister should not underestimate the problems that could arise if differences were to arise between the abortion laws of Scotland and those of England. Moral issues are also involved in maintaining separate laws on both sides of the border. The Minister may say that there are differences on both sides of the border in the law on homosexuality, but even so the law on that matter is not being applied in Scotland at present.
The Minister may also say that United Kingdom law in these respects would have spending implications for the Scottish Assembly. If the House of Commons were to listen to those who wish to bring in a law to give abortions on demand, that would have serious expenditure and moral implications for Scotland. It would mean that the Scottish health services would have to spend more on providing abortion services. The Minister no doubt could point to differences in other respects. In a devolved situation one could have

differences in the school-leaving age on each side of the border.
I appreciate that there are arguments on both sides, but I hope that the Minister will reply to the convincing case which we have advanced. I repeat that serious problems could arise in the Health Service if different abortion laws apply in Scotland and south of the border. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will consider it appropriate not to include the subject of abortion within the subjects to be devolved. The family planning matter may not be so difficult to deal with. It might be possible to include that matter without creating confusion, but certainly the subject of abortion will create many problems. Therefore, I hope that between now and Report the Minister will re-examine the position on abortion and will consider whether there is a case for removing it from Group 1.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): There are three propositions before the Committee. One is the general proposition of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) that the Health Service functions should be reserved and should not be devolved in any shape or form, and the other two propositions relate to family planning and abortion. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) claimed, no doubt inspired by the BMA, that those functions should be reserved. I shall take the various subjects rather than deal with the points made on them in the various speeches because in that way I hope to avoid answering each point three times over. I think that will be the most coherent way of dealing with this debate.
Let me deal first with the proposition that the Health Service should be not devolved but reserved. It is worth noting that the Health Service was the one function that was concentrated on by the Royal Commission on the Constitution and was specially selected as a good example of a function that should be devolved. It was selected for the specific reason that decisions on health matters affect people in very personal ways. It was for that reason that the Royal Commission, as the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) knows, selected the Health Service as a prime example of the sort of function that should be devolved.
I realise that in deciding to devolve the health services we set up various fears. These fears have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and by almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate. I do not blame the BMA in Scotland. I have good relations with it. I meet it from time to time. I cannot remember a meeting at which there has been any ill feeling. I find its members a reasonable group. I do not want to give the impression that we are dealing with unreasonable people. I understand the fears. The apprehensions that have been outlined by the BMA in Scotland require to be answered.
The medical schools that are part of the four universities in Scotland that teach doctors are not to be devolved because the universities are not to be devolved.
The medical schools obtain their finance in two ways. That is because they have two functions to perform. There is the obvious function of academic teaching, and there is a service function. Even when students are training they do some work in the health services. Therefore, the schools obtain their finance in two ways. One way is through the normal university channels and the other is from the money voted to the Scottish Office for health services purposes in Scotland.
In future under the devolution proposals the schools will still obtain their finance in two ways. They will still obtain the element of finance related to the academic function through the normal university channels. They will obtain the other element of finance from the Assembly because of the in-service work that they do for the health services and, therefore, for the Assembly.
There is no danger to the teaching schools. I am sure that the BMA and all who are concerned about this matter will accept tht assurance. I have been perplexed by the feeling throughout the debate that somehow the Assembly will go for lower standards. That argument does not bear examination. It is not true. It may go for different standards, but it definitely will not go for lower standards. If it goes for different standards, that will be because since time immemorial we have had different standards in Scotland as the needs have been different. For example, the mortality

rate has been much higher in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The health needs of the people of Scotland have been different through the years. That is why the present allocation of resources is different. The needs of the people are different, and most of the things that we do in Scotland in the health services are done differently from the way in which they are done in England and Wales, especially as regards administration.
In Scotland we provide more in-care for patients. We have more patients per head of the population having treatment in hospital rather than as out-patients. That is because of the traditional medical needs of the people of Scotland. We continue to work hard to solve many of the health problems with which we have been beset over the years.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not doubt my hon. Friend's sincerity in saying that the Assembly would not want to go for lower standards, but is it not a fact that there might be less money available for health matters? Righly or wrongly, the Assembly may make a decision that there will be a good deal more money available for housing, and, therefore, whether we like it or not resources for health will be less.

Mr. Ewing: I am coming to the point about housing. I do not want to be unkind to my hon. Friend, because he and I are the best of personal friends, but I have the feeling that if we go from now until doomsday I shall not convince him on any aspect of devolution. It is as well to approach my reply to the debate from that standpoint. Indeed, I am not being unkind when I say that my hon. Friend is here not to be convinced but to argue against the principle of devolution.
There has been a mistaken impression in the debate that housing and health are not linked. Decisions on housing are often taken on the basis of health, not housing, need. There is a link between housing and health. It is not right for Members of Parliament to separate housing from health in the defined manner that has been evident in the debate. Decisions on housing—whether to demolish and to build new houses or whether to upgrade houses—are often as much


related to health as to the standard of housing that we want people to enjoy.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian struck the heart of the matter as did all hon. Members who brought up the question of the allocation of resources between housing, health, education, roads and various other devolved functions. I repeat, that is what devolution is about. We should not back away from it. There is no point in anyone, from this Dispatch Box or from other places, trying to disguise the fact that devolution is about choice and differences. If the Assembly decides to allocate more resources to housing or to education than to health, it will have to answer to the Scottish electorate. There should be no apprehension about this matter.
The control of the profession is, as the hon. Member for Fife, East recognised, a reserved matter. The General Medical Council will continue to operate and be responsible for all the disciplinary procedures, control mechanisms, registrations, and so on, that it operates and is responsible for now.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the prosecution of an offence committed in a devolved area. Again, there is no difficulty about that aspect. Although prosecution is reserved, the procurator fiscal—the authority who prosecutes crime—will, as at present, on the basis of a crime having been committed and reported, proceed accordingly. Although prosecution is a reserved matter, there will be no difficulty in prosecuting a crime that takes place in a devolved area. I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee on that matter.
Many questions were asked about the negotiations relating to salaries, conditions of employment and various related matters. The main body for negotiating consultants' contracts and conditions is the Review Body. The Review Body will continue to exist. However, I should not want to mislead the Committee into believing that separate machinery would not be set up in Scotland. That is a possibility. As a result of devolution, it is possible that the BMA in Scotland and the Assembly will get together to set up their own negotiating machinery. I do not think it is probable, but it is possible.
Consultants' contracts, conditions of employment and remuneration are subject

to ratification by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is clearly defined in Clause 23 and Schedule 4. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Scotland, whoever he or she may be at the time that the Assembly is set up, will have what I suppose the Committee would want to call an override on the question of consultants' contracts, conditions of employment, and so on.
10.45 p.m.
The Government recognise that it is very important to maintain uniform training standards in order to achieve uniform standards in the profession. We do not want a situation in which doctors or consultants working in the health services are forced to work continually in one part of the United Kingdom. We want to maintain a situation in which a doctor feels free to move backwards and forwards to various parts of the United Kingdom. This can he done easily if training standards are uniform, and all those other matters within the ambit of the General Medical Council are kept. They are reserved subjects. I hope that the BMA, which seems to require some reassurance on this point, will now feel reassured.
I shall refer specifically to one or two of the speeches made tonight. I hope that I shall not appear discourteous if I do not refer to all the speeches, but I thought it better to divide my reply to the debate into subject matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to the question of family planning and abortion—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Before my hon. Friend comes to that, will he answer the question whether people will be able to move freely from Scotland to England or from England to Scotland for medical care after devolution?

Mr Ewing: I was coming to that point. My hon. Friend said that he had fears about the possibility—he put it no higher than that—that people might not be able to move back and forth between the various health authority areas in the United Kingdom. There is no possibility that they will not be able to do so. For example, those who come to the National Heart Centre in London may continue to do so. We are able to deal with large numbers of incoming patients from foreign countries without any problems,


so there is no reason why patients from Scotland should cause any difficulties. I hope that this will reassure both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) who also expressed anxiety on this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North also raised the question of family planning and abortion. He said that these matters always had been administered on a United Kingdom basis, and that policy had always been decided on that basis as well. Technically that is not correct. The family planning aspect comes under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972, but the abortion aspect is on a United Kingdom basis.
I do not intend to become involved in the merits of the argument about abortion. My views are well known, and are beside the point, in any case, but it seems rather strange that the hon. Member for Cathcart should ask me to look at this again between now and Report. It would be dishonest for me to say that the Government view was likely to change between now and Report. There is no point in leading the Committee down this path.
It would be both strange and dangerous to devolve to Scotland all the other child-bearing functions—family planning, all aspects of maternity, obstetrics and gynaecology—and hold on to abortion. I hope that the Committee, on reflection, will consider that it is right to deal with matters in the way that we are proposing and devolve abortion as well.
We have always regarded abortion as a matter of conscience, and the people of Scotland are just as much in possession of conscience as people in other parts of the United Kingdom. That will always be the case. There are no dangers involved in devolving abortion, but I do see dangers in reserving it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister said earlier that my hon Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was not here to be convinced. I hope that Ministers are here to be convinced on specific issues. When divorce law was different in Scotland and England, someone living in Scotland could not get a divorce in England. When Scots law was in advance of English law, a person

living in England could not get a divorce in Scotland. Residence north or south of the border affected one's ability to get a divorce.
If the law on abortion becomes different in Scotland and England, how will that affect the ability of people living each side of the border to get a therapeutic abortion? My hon Friend said that treatment will still be available to people moving between different health authorities, but is there not the possibility of differences in abortion law taking away individuals' rights to therapy? There is a substantial point of law involved here.

Mr. Ewing: I do not intend to go into the merits of abortion. There are major differences in laws, including those moral laws relating to divorce, abortion and other aspects of marriage. I refer to these as part of the moral law and to other legislation as the criminal and civil law. There will always be major differences in various aspects of the law between England and Scotland. We have been able to live well with that fact. Even under the present Abortion Act, a number of people come from Scotland to England in order to obtain abortions and probably one or two go from England to Scotland.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: My hon. Friend has not yet understood the crucial point that if there were differences in abortion law between Scotland and England it is possible that women would move across the border in order to evade the law in their area of residence. They could not do that when there were differences in divorce laws unless they changed their residence. There is a crucial difference here to which my hon. Friend must address himself if he is to satisfy the Committee.

Mr. Ewing: It surprises me that we are prepared to accept differences in aspects of family planing and maternity, yet on this one aspect of child bearing—and I am not making light of this serious matter—we say to the people of Scotland that they cannot be trusted to formulate their own approach to this matter. If we are not saying that to them, what are we saying?

Mrs. Wise: The matter of trusting Scottish or English people is not the point


—nor is the question of difference in marriage laws. As long as one is resident in an area of the United Kingdom, one knows under which law one is living if there are differences in the law.
The point about abortion is that a woman can visit, take her problem with her and solve it in one part of the United Kingdom where the law is different. This is the difference between abortion and the law relating to divorce and other matters concerned with child bearing. No one in England or Scotland could change the law about how to have babies, but they could change the law about abortion.

Mr. Ewing: I am tempted to answer my hon. Friend's last point, but I shall not do so. The point about divorce is the same as the point about abortion. It was not the House of Comons that stopped divorce law reform in Scotland for very many years. It was the attitude of the people of Scotland. Running through the whole argument about whether we ought to devolve abortion matters is clearly a fear in the minds of my hon. Friends and others who are in favour of retaining them that somehow or other there will be a change in the abortion law in Scotland. If there is no fear, there is no need to get worried about devolving the law on abortion. If there is a fear, my hon. Friends are quite right to be worried.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am concerned about therapy for the individual patient. At present, for everything else one can get treatment north or south of the border, irrespective of anything else, but if the law relating to therapy, either north or south of the border—it could happen either way—is different, how would that affect the availability of the NHS generally to the patient? I beg my hon. Friend not to close his mind but to look at this matter again, not from a moral point of view but from a therapeutic point of view.

Mr. Ewing: I am looking at it not from a moral point of view but from a practical point of view. It is simply not practical politics to devolve the whole of this part of the Health Service and to hold on to this one aspect of it. I say in all sincerity to my hon. Friends that we shall not be able to convince people in Scotland that the reason we held on to these particular aspects of family planning—call it what one will—

at Westminster was other than that we were afraid that they would not handle it in the way in which some hon. Members want it handled.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ewing: No, I do not want to give way. I have only another four minutes, want to finish this matter tonight.
I am aware that what I have said may not have satisfied some of my hon. Friends. However, I am convinced that it is right to devolve this aspect of the health services. I can only allow the Committee to decide the issue when it is put to the test, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West no doubt intends to put it to the test.
I have dealt with the question of the health service in general and with the question of family planning and abortion.
The hon. Member for Cathcart, raised the question of the Civil Service. There is really no problem concerning that, because there will be no question of civil servants or a civil servant working both to the Scottish Assembly and to the Secretary of State. The civil servants will work for one or the other; they will not work for both. It will be a unified Civil Service. They will all be members of the same Civil Service to allow for United Kingdom recruitment, promotion and movement of civil servants. But they will work in Scotland for either the Assembly or the Secretary of State, not both.
Therefore, the kind of conflict that the hon. Gentleman suggests, and which, to a certain extent, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian suggests—he ought not to frown, because I am coming to a good comment about him—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I want to put an example to the Minister. To whom will the principal civil servant in the Scottish Home and Health Department be responsible—the Secretary of State or the Assembly? If it is the Assembly, can the Minister say who will be the principal official in the Scottish Home and Health Department who is answerable to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Ewing: If the Secretary of State has health functions, he will have a civil servant who works for him in relation to


the health functions. The Scottish Assembly will have its health functions and will have a clearly defined civil servant who works to the Assembly in health matters. There is nothing complicated about that.
I do not think that it would be to the benefit of the Committee if I continued the debate into our next Sitting, whenever that may be. It would be better if we resolved these points tonight.
One of the lasting impressions left with me from the debate was the tribute of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. It will look brilliant in my hon. Friend's election address that the SNP says that the House of Commons will be a poorer place without Tam Dalyell. I do not know how the hon. Member will explain that to Billy Wolfe. When my hon. Friend prints it in his election address, it will be worth a great many votes.

The Chairman: The Question is—

Sir David Renton: Will the Minister bear in mind that what he was saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].

Committee report Progress: to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (LIBRARY)

Motion made,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), in their Fifth Report, in the last Session of Parliament, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.—[Mr. Scrape.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (STOCKPORT)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Scrape.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to have this opportunity

to raise an issue which affects a small number of my constituents but which is also of national significance.
In the first few years of this century the people of Reddish, in the northern part of my constituency, had a choice during local government reorganisation of whether to be swallowed up by Manchester or Stockport. During the campaign the Stockport authority made a series of promises for education if the people of Reddish opted to go with Stockport rather than with Manchester. Many people claim that the promises made were decisive to the vote. Many people now feel that since then Stockport has let them down and has failed to carry out the promises that were made in the town hall so long ago.
I shall give an example of the way in which the people feel that Stockport has let them down. I hope because of the debate and the action that the Minister could take that the Minister will be able to persuade Stockport to put this anomaly right. If the Government cannot do that I hope that they will bring forward legislation to amend the Education Act 1944 fairly soon to stop this anomaly and to ensure that there is greater choice of primary schools for parents.
The problem faces the parents who live north of the north Reddish railway line and west of Gorton Road in such roads as Broadfield Road, Broadfield Grove, Bellfield Road, Lonsdale Road and the area round Beresford Crescent and it is a particular problem to the parents of children who are coming up to school age.
By a quirk of the boundaries Aspinall School is nearer to Stockport children than it is to Manchester children. If Stockport had planned to build a school for its children it would have built it on this site. It is ideal for the children of this area.
For almost 30 years Manchester allowed Stockport children to attend this school. It was ideal. There were no main roads to cross. Children could walk to school while parents stood on the front door step and watched them. Infants could walk alone to school safely and happily after only a few days.
In 1974 it looked as though a problem might begin to develop as a result


of new housing, particularly in Stockport, including the building of Broad-field Grove. It appeared that the numbers would make it difficult for Aspinall School to admit all the children who wanted to attend it. But fortunately, just as the discussions were taking place about restrictions, it was realised that with a falling birth rate this problem was not likely to last very long. Therefore, after a short period in 1974 the situation changed. Aspinal School was able to take all the children who wanted to attend it from Manchester and this area in Stockport. Everything went on very satisfactorily until almost 12 months ago, when Stockport Education Committee made a new policy decision, that no primary school children in Stockport were allowed to go to out-district schools.
The result was that children in this area would in future have to go to a Stockport school. Although about half a mile away as the crow flies, the nearest is, because of the railway line, three-quarters of a mile away. Parents living in Broadfield Grove must come out of their houses, look straight at Aspinal School, then walk past it down Bellfield Road along the busy Gorton Road into Station Road and round the present waterworks disruptions—I hope that they will not last long. Then the parents must walk along Station Road, where there is much heavy lorry traffic, cross that road, and then, via a series of back passages and Sandford Lane, go into the rear entrance of Firtree School.
It is certainly not a journey that an infant can do on his or her own, nor is it the sort of journey that parents are happy to see eight-year-olds or even nine-year-olds make. If a parent has to take a child backwards and forwards to school four times it is certainly an unpleasant and long journey. If one has to push a pram at the same time it becomes a nightmare, particularly now, with the disruption caused by the work in Station Road.
The journey by public transport is even further, involving two buses. It is expensive and often entails long waits. Anyone taking the bus journey passes a different Stockport School, the North Reddish School, on the way to Firtree.
It might be a solution if Stockport said that all the children from the area could

go to North Reddish School. At least there would be only one bus journey. It seems ridiculous that children must walk past one primary school with space to accept them and then find that they must get on a bus and go down the road to a different school. Stockport cannot guarantee places at North Reddish School for all these children.
I am not really concerned whether one school is better or worse, nor are the parents in the area concerned about the merits of the schools. They are simply concerned about the difficulties of getting to school. I stress that from what I have seen and heard all three schools involved do a first-class job. I should be very happy if my children went to any of them.
Since Stockport made the ruling last year, a few parents have accepted the decision. They have cursed bureaucracy but have put up with it. Some of them have appealed to the education committee. It looked at first as though the committee, having made a ruling for the whole of Stockport, would show sympathy and compassion in this area, treat each case on its merits and find that it could make exceptions to its rule. That would solve the problems for the people in the area.
At least one family in the area, upset by the ruling, sold their house and moved out. I am told that another family narrowly avoided buying a house in the area because they became aware of the problem. The problem has not been solved by people moving or avoiding buying houses, or by the committee looking with sympathy at particular problems. The committee decided that by looking at each case on its merits it was beginning to create an exemption for the whole area, and it started to be particularly harsh.
One case which concerns me particularly is that of a mother in a one-parent family with one child aged seven, who is at Aspinal school, and another child aged four. The child of four could start at once at Aspinal school, but the local education committee has said that the mother must take it to Firtree, and that if she wants her two children to attend the same school she must take the child of seven years out of Aspinal, where it is doing well, and move it to Firtree.
It is hard enough for two parents to look after children of this age, but it is harder still for a woman on her own who is also trying to get work. To add to the problem, Stockport Education Committee says that the child must travel the longer distance to Firtree, whereas going to Aspinal would mean crossing only one minor road. If a woman in that position is looking for work, it is one thing to ask a neighbour to mind a child after school when it has to travel only a short distance, but quite another to ask that neighbour to take a 20-minute journey to a school in order to collect the child. I feel strongly that Stockport should have shown more compassion in this case.
There is another family in which a child should be starting school next September. There will be a small baby which will have to be pushed in its pram while the older child is taken backwards and forwards to school.
I know that the Minister has persuaded Stockport to obey the law on different education matters, and I hope that in this situation although she has less power, my hon. Friend will use her charm to persuade Stockport to be more compassionate towards the small number of parents in this area who would like their children to attend Aspinal. If my hon. Friend cannot persuade Stockport to show compassion and concern for these children, perhaps she will consider speeding up proposals to amend the Education Act 1944, because it seems to me that that Act is unsatisfactory in the way it deals with the question of parental choice.
Two sections of the Act apply. There is Section 67, which does not really give parents very much power at all. If parents feel that the authority is acting unreasonably they can ask the Minister to allow their children to go to the school of their choice. But it seems that the Minister has to come down in most cases in favour of the authority even if, in her view, it is acting unreasonably.
On the other hand, if a parent wishes to be awkward and does not mind jeopardising the education of his child for a while, he can use Section 37 and simply refuse to send the child to school. Thus, if someone keeps his child away

from school for six months or so, eventually forcing the local authority to prosecute him under Section 37, when that case goes to court there are powers in the Act which enable the parent to exercise choice. Therefore, the parent who has kept his child from school may well find that he can appeal to the Minister, and that the Minister will, under Section 37, have to agree to allow the child to go to the school of his choice.
It would, therefore, be possible for parents in this area, if they wanted to be awkward, to keep their children from school until they were prosecuted. Then, as a result, they would almost certainly gain permission for their children to go to Aspinal. But I say to those parents that it would be foolish of them to take such a course, because it would jeopardise their children by keeping them out of school for six months—indeed, in some instances, it would be longer since in some cases in practice the children would be allowed to start school before the statutory age. It is wrong to have these two conflicting sections in the Act because the situation tends to give more benefit to the parent who proposes to be awkward and take on bureaucracy than to the parent concerned for the best interests of his child.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to persuade Stockport to find an equitable solution. If she cannot, I hope that time will be found in this Session to amend the 1944 Act in order to set out clearly the parents' right to choose a school, particularly if they are choosing on the ground that it is the school that is nearest and most convenient for their children to attend. I hope that my hon. Friend can offer some help and concern to these parents in this small area of North Reddish who feel that they have a major problem.

11.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has admirably expressed his great concern about parents from North Reddish who are worried and are affected by the Stockport education authority's policy on the admission of children to schools in Manchester and Tameside. It is always particularly difficult for parents affected


in this way when the situation is due to a policy change—more difficult even than just the application of a policy of long standing--and particularly hard for them to understand. My hon. Friend has admirably sketched the history of the area, of the schools involved and the implications of the problem.
in essence, the position is that some parents from this area have been told by Stockport that their children may be refused places at the schools involved because the authority in Stockport does not wish to have to pay the extra district charges to the neighbouring authorities which this would involve.
The position in law is quite clear. It is, briefly, that an education authority is required to pay what is known as an extra-district charge for any child who lives in its area and is admitted to a school maintained by another authority, as would be the case in the circumstances raised by my hon. Friend. Without such a payment, of course, the receiving authority in this case, perhaps Manchester, will often be unwilling to take the child into one of its schools. The home authority has a duty to pay such a charge and can be relieved of the charge only by a direction from the Secretary of State. In deciding whether to give such a direction, my right hon. Friend has to have regard to the availability of suitable places in the child's own area and all other circumstances of the case.
Each case, therefore, has to be looked at individually, but in general, if the home authority has a suitable and reasonably acceptable place available, my right hon. Friend will give it a direction relieving it of the extra-district charge unless there is some particular reason why the child should attend the school outside its own area. Sometimes, for example, a brother or sister already goes to the extra-district school, or the school is very much easier to get to by public transport, or is a denominational school. Sometimes parents have changed address across a local government boundary or the boundary has changed but the parents would prefer a child not to change schools. My right hon. Friend would be reluctant to give a direction to relieve the home authority of its responsibility of paying charges where any of these circumstances exist, unless the authority has advanced exceptional reason for her to do so.
In general, we hope—and we have expressed the hope frequently—that all education authorities will be flexible and allow as much movement across local authority boundaries as possible. Unfortunately, in recent months there has been evidence that a few authorities have taken an unneccessarily obstructive attitude to parents who have a good reason for wanting their children to attend extra-district schools. We can understand why an authority, faced with falling numbers of pupils, might try to persuade parents that their children would be better off in its own schools rather than in an extra-district school. However, we cannot condone any action that an authority might take to bully parents into accepting one of its own places when those parents have a good reason for an extra-district place. Fortunately, most authorities do adopt a reasonable attitude to parental preferences, and for them the present system works satisfactorily, as it does for the parents involved. Nevertheless, we are concerned to ensure that all authorities are equally reasonable.
My hon. Friend referred to potential changes in the law. The general question of schools admission procedures and how to ensure that local authorities take proper account of parental preferences in cases of this kind or others has been under review of late. We have realised in recent years that the law on school admissions is becoming increasingly confusing and contradictory. The Department wrote in October to a number of organisations and associations with a special interest in these matters setting out proposals for legislation and asking for comments on them.
The matters to which my hon. Friend referred in dealing with the implications, respectively, of Sections 68 and 37 were dealt with in very general terms in those proposals, and we expect to receive comments on them. However, the specific matter that my hon. Friend raised in the case of extra-district charges that we are discussing was also raised as a special case in itself, and when we receive comments on the proposals in general and on these aspects we shall consider what changes might be desirable, but in the context of our proposals for legislation generally on school admission.
Subject to the outcome of these consultations, our present intention is that the fact of a child's residence in the area


of one education authority should not be a reason for automatically refusing admission to the school of the parent's choice in a different authority, but where a child is admitted to a school in the area of a different authority that authority will always be entitled to receive an appropriate extra-district payment. In other words, we have looked at the specific implications of parental preference and of schools which children attend—a matter which my hon. Friend is raising tonight—in a little more detail than in the general context of parental preference and how it might be exercised.
My hon. Friend referred to my attempt to persuade Stockport by using my charm. I am touched by his faith in that somewhat intangible commodity, but I place less faith in it. However, fortunately, it might not be necessary to rely on charm.
My hon. Friend referred to two specific cases from the area of North Reddish. Only one case has been referred to me so far—that was in September—and it concerned a child who was not due to enter school until September 1978. I am not sure whether this is the child to whom my hon. Friend referred. This child had a brother at an extra-district school to which the parent wished to send him, and I was able to advise my hon. Friend that the fact that the brother was at this school would be regarded by my right hon. Friend as significant if, in the circumstances of the child's potential admission, the Stockport authority came to her for a direction. In the event, I believe that these parents moved from the area, which leads me to believe that this is the case to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The difficulty is that the head of Aspinal School has been told, on instruction from Stockport, that he may not admit any Stockport children, because the extra-district charge will not be paid. The Minister seems to be saying that if the child was admitted the Secretary of State could use her power to ensure that the extra-district charge was paid. Can my hon. Friend deal with that? The particular instance is the one in which the parents, because they were

so upset by the bureaucracy, sold their house and moved to avoid difficulties.

Miss Jackson: I thought that that was the case to which my hon. Friend was referring. If my hon. Friend has other cases which he feels he should refer to me, I shall look into them individually on their merits, because that is the only way in which one can deal with this question.
The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that it is not open to Stockport to say that the extra-district charge will not be paid for children who are admitted to Aspinal. If children are admitted to that school, Stockport must apply to my right hon. Friend for a specific direction to relieve it of the necessity to pay this charge. It might be that in some individual cases my right hon. Friend will conclude that there is no special reason why children should attend this school rather than another and decide that she will relieve Stockport of the necessity to pay the charge, in which case I presume, from what my hon. Friend said, that Aspinal would not admit such a child.
If my right hon. Friend were to reach the conclusion that in a particular case the authority was not on good ground and that the parents had a perfectly justifiable reason for wishing the child to attend this school rather than another, it would be within my right hon. Friend's power to refuse to relieve Stockport of the extra-district charge, in which case Stockport would have to pay it.
Those are the circumstances of the case that my hon. Friend has outlined. There are difficulties in every case. These cases are subject to individual examination, and individual decision. All of us wish to be fair both to the parents and to the authority, but I repeat that if my hon. Friend has cases that are of special concern to him and he feels that there are particularly strong cases for children to be admitted to this school I shall be willing to look at them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.